A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

SECT. I.

Of the Authors of the Books of the Old Testament.

OF all those (a) Paradoxes, that have been advanced in our Age, there is none, in my Judgment, more rash and dangerous than the Opinion of those, who have presu∣med to deny, that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch: For what can be more rash than to deny Matter of Fact, that has been established by express Texts of Holy Scripture (b), by the Authority of Jesus Christ (c), by the Consent of all Nations (d), and by the Authentick Testimonies of the most Ancient Authors (e)? And what can be more dangerous, than to bid Defiance to Antiquity, and consequently destroy the Authority of those Books, which are, as it were, the very Foundations of our Religion (f) ? And yet this they do, who dare affirm that the Books of the Pentateuch are not written by Moses, and endeavour to prove it by such weak Conjectures, that 'tis impossible for a Man of tolerable sense to be convin∣ced by them (g). For, allowing all that they alledge were true, (h) they could only prove, the same thing has happen'd to the Books of Moses, which has happen'd almost to all the Books of An∣cient Authors, viz. That some few Words, Names and Terms have been altered or added to render the Narrative more intelligible to those that lived in the following Ages. For example: We find the Ancient Names of Cities are sometimes changed for those they received afterwards, because they would have been no longer known by their Ancient Appellations. There are likewise some short Explications inserted into these Sacred Books, to illustrate what was said by the Author: And, in short, some necessary Passages have been added to compleat the History. These things are common, and we find Examples of it in the Books of Homer, Herodotus, and almost all the Ancient Histori∣ans, and yet no Body is inclined for all this to reject their Books, as if they did not belong to those whose Names they bear. Why then should we not say the same thing of the Books of the Penta∣teuch, which have been more constantly assigned to Moses, than the Poems of the Iliads or the Odys∣ses to Homer, or the Histories of Herodotus and Thucydides to those by whose Names they are known? Let us examine all the Reasons that are alledged against the Antiquity of the Pentateuch, since they imagine they are unanswerable, (which yet is very false, as we shall make appear in these following Discourses) and we shall see they only prove that some Names of Cities or Countries are changed, some few Words inserted to explain some Difficulties; and lastly, that the account of Moses's Death has been put in since, which was but necessary to finish the History of the Pentateuch. We ought

therefore to affirm it for a certain Truth, That Moses was the Author of the first Five Books of the Bible, called the Pentateuch.

There are given to each of these Five Books, (which have their Names in Hebrew from the first Word in each Book) there are given 'em, I say, such Names as have a relation to the Subject. The first is called Genesis, because it begins with the History of the Creation of the World. It contains besides that the Genealogy of the Patriarchs, the History of the Flood, a Catalogue of the Descen∣da•…•… of Noah do••n to A•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Life of Abrah••••, of Jacob and Joseph, and the History of the Pos••e••••ty o•• J••••o••, down to the Death of Joseph. So that this Book comprehends the History of 2369 Years, or thereabouts, following the account of the Years of the Patriarchs, as we find them in the Hebrew Text.

The Second is called Exodus, because the principal Subject of it is the Departure of the Children of Israel out of Egypt, and all that passed in the Wilderness under Moses's Conduct, for an Hundred forty five Years, viz. from the Death of Joseph, to the Building of the Tabernacle. We find there a Description of the Plagues wherewith Egypt was afflicted; an Abridgment of the Religion and Laws of the Israelites; together with the admirable Precepts of the Decalogue.

The third is called Leviticus, because it contains the Laws, the Ceremonies, and Sacrifices of the Religion of the Jews: All which has a particular Relation to the Levites, to whom God gave the charge of all those things that concern'd the Ceremonial part of that Religion.

The fourth is called Numbers, because it begins with the Numbring of the Children of Israel that came out of Egypt, and concludes with the Laws that were given the People of Israel during the Thirty nine Years of their sojourning in the Wilderness.

Deuteronomy, that is to say, the second Law, is so called, because it is, as it were, a Repetition of the first: Fo•• after Moses has described in a few Words the principal Actions of the Israelites in the Wilderness, ••e recites abundance of the Precepts of the Law.

(i) We don't certainly know when these Books were composed by Moses, or which was first writ∣ten: However, 'tis very certain, that Deuteronomy was written last, in the Fortieth Year of the De∣parture out of Egypt, and a little before the Death of Moses.

We can't so certainly tell who are the Authors of the other Books of the Bible: Some of 'em we only know by Conjecture, and others there are of which we have no manner of Knowledge.

It is not certain that the Book of (k) Joshuah was written by himself; for as it is observed by the Author of the Abridgment of the Scripture attributed to St. Athanasius, this Title is set at the Head of that Book, not so much to discover the Author, as to make the Subject of it known; because it treats of War, and other things that happen'd under the Conduct of Joshuah, after the same manner as the Books of Judges, of Kings, of Tobit, of Judith, are so called, because they give an Account of the Lives and Actions of those whose Names they bear. But though 'tis commonly believed that this Book was written by Joshuah, and this Opinion seems to be countenanced by some Words of the last Chapter, where it is said that Joshuah wrote all these things in the Book of the Law: Nevertheless we must affirm, that 'tis certain, that Theodoret, and some others among the Ancients, are not of this Opinion, and that we have Reasons strong enough to make us doubt whether he is the Author or no. However it is, 'tis a most unquestionable Truth, that this Book is ancient, and that if it is not Joshuah's, it was written either by his particular Order, or a little after his Death. It carries the Hi∣story of the People of Israel Seventeen Years beyond the Death of Moses, or thereabout.

We yet know less of the Author of the Book of Judges. Some with the Talmudical Doctors attri∣bute it to Samuel, some to Hezekiah, others to Ezrah. In short, some Persons are of Opinion, that every Judge wrote his own Memoirs, which were afterward collected by Samuel or Ezrah. Be it as it will, the Book is certainly ancient, and (l) admit it was put into the condition we now find it by Ezrah, yet we cannot reasonably question its being composed from ancient Memoirs. It contains the History of what happen'd to the Israelites from the Death of Joshuah, to that of Sampson. We can∣not precisely tell what Number of Years it takes in, tho' 'tis commonly fixed to something above 300 Years.

The Book of Ruth is a kind of an Appendix to the Book of Judges, which is the reason why the Jews made but one Book of these two, and for the same reason 'tis commonly believed that one Au∣thor composed both. 'Tis certain that the History of Ruth comes up to the times of the Judges, but we don't know the time exactly. We may assign it to the time of Samgar, Eight and twenty Years, or thereabouts, after the Death of Joshuah.

The two first Books of Kings are called by the Hebrews the Book of Samuel, which has occasioned the Opinion that they were in part written by that Prophet (m); that is to say, that he composed the Four and twenty first Chapters, and that the Prophets, Gad and Nathan afterwards compleated the Work. This is the Opinion of the Talmudists and Isidore, and is founded upon these Words of the Chronicles, 1 Chron. 29. 29. Now the Acts of David the King, first and last, behold they are written in the Book of Samuel the Seer, and in the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Book of Gad the Seer. Theo∣do•…•…t and Diodorus of Tarsus seem to be of this Opinion, when they say, that it was the custom of all Prophets amongst the Hebrews to write down whatever happen'd in their time; and that upon this score it is, that the first Book of Kings is called the Prophesie of Samuel. Others pretend that these Books are of a later date, because we find some ways of speaking there which don't belong to that time, but perhaps they were added since; and it is very probable that both these Books are very ancient. However, 'tis certain that they were written before the Chronicles. The first of these two Books of Kings contains that which passed under the Government of Eli of Samuel, and under the Reign of Saul:

The second, is the History of David's Government. The two last Books of Kings, contain the Hi∣story of the Reign of Salomon Son of David, and afterwards the Reigns of the several Kings of Israel, and Judah, down to the Destruction of Israel, and the Captivity of Judah. We don't know who is the Author of these two Books. Some, as the Talmudists for instance, attribute them to Jeremiah, others to Isaiah, and the greatest part to Ezrah. 'Tis a Collection, or an Historical Abridgment drawn out of several Memoirs and Books of the Prophets, which are there frequently quoted. These Four Books of Kings contain the History of almost Six hundred Years.

The two Books of Chronicles are called Paralipomena by the Greeks, because they contain some Cir∣cumstances that were omitted in the other Historical Books. The Hebrews call them Diaries, and St. Jerome Chronicles. 'Tis commonly believed that Ezrah wrote them, and that he drew this Abridgment partly from those Books of the Bible which we have, and partly from other Memoirs that he had at the time of his writing. St. Jerome thinks that this was the Book that is cited in the Book of Kings, under the Name of The Book of the Sayings of the Kings of Judah. But 'tis evident that it is not, and that the Book of Chronicles was written since that of Kings, as we prove by the last Words of that Book, where mention is made of the Deliverance of the Jews by Cyrus.

'Tis commonly believed that it was Ezrah, who composed the first Book of those that carry his Name; and indeed Ezrah speaks there in his own Person (n). Huetius pretends that the first Chapters of that Book were written by another Author, but his Conjecture is not strong enough to make us quit the common Opinion (o). The second Book belongs to Nehemiah without question (p), for he declares himself the Author of it in the beginning of the Book, and always speaks of himself in the first Person. The first of these two Books contains the History of the Deliverance of the Jews from their Captivity, and their Re-establishment in Judea from the first Year of Cyrus, to the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus, for 82 or 83 Years. And the second begins from the twentieth Year of the aforesaid Artaxerxes, and reaches to the Reign of Darius his Son, Sirnamed the Bastard, which com∣prehends the History of the Jews for thirty or one and thirty Years.

'Tis commonly believed, that Tobit and Tobias wrote their own History themselves (q): But this O∣pinion is very uncertain. 'Tis generally believed that this Book was at first writ in Chaldee, that St. Je∣rome translated it into Latin, and that this History was afterwards put into Hebrew. There are two different Hebrew Editions of it, one set out by Munster, and the other by Fagius. There is also an an∣cient Greek Edition, out of which the Syriac Version was composed. Tobit was one of the Israelites that were carried out of Samaria by King Shalmanezer.

The Author of the Book of Judith is yet less known, as Isidore has observed. Some believe it was written by Eliachim, or Joachim High Priest of the Jews, of whom mention is made in that Book: O∣thers say it was Joshuah the Son of Josedec, the Companion of Zorobabel: Others in short, maintain that it was not written till the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, before the Maccabees time. 'Tis written in Chaldee, and that has made Huetius think that it was written during the Babylonian Captivity. St. Je∣rome translated it into Latin, rather following the Sense, as he tells us, than the bare Letter. The Greek Version which we have is very different from the Latin, and seems to be more literal. The time wherein the History mention'd in this Book did happen, is no less uncertain (r). Some place it before the Captivity, others after, and some have the boldness to say, That whatever is in this Book, is only a Parable and Allegory, that has nothing of Historical Truth in it.

The time, and the Author of the History of Hester, are also very uncertain (s). St. Epiphanius, St. Austin, and St. Isidore, attribute this Book to Ezrah. Others to Joachim High Priest of the Jews, Grand-Son of Josedec. Most Men say that Mordecai wrote it (t), who is so often mentioned in it. The T••lmudists attribute it to the Synagogue. The six last Chapters, that are found in the Greek, are not in the Original Hebrew. Origen, in his Letter to Africamus, believes it was lost. Grotius pretends that these Chapters were composed by the Greek Proselytes. Sixtus Senensis says they were taken out of Josephus. Bellarmine, and some others, maintain, that there are two Hebrew Editions of this Book, one larger than the other, where these last Chapters are found, and the other the same with what we have. Some say the History of Hester happen'd under Darius the Son of Hystaspes; others place it under Xerxes; and lastly, there are some who place it under Ciaxares King of the Medes. The first Opinion seems to be most probable.

The time wherein Job lived, is yet more difficult to discover; and the Author of the Book, who has compiled his History, is no less unknown (u). Some, as Origen, St. Gregory, and Suidas, attribute it to Job himself: Others believe that Moses was the Author of it, or that he translated it into Hebrew. St. Gre∣gory Nazianzen attributes it to Salomon; others to Isaiah, or to some one of the Prophets. All these Opinions are built but upon very slight Conjectures. Wherefore 'tis better, in my Opinion, to suspend ones Judgment, than to assert any of the above-mentioned Opionions that are equally uncertain. But at the same time we must not fall into the opposite Errour, by saying with the Talmudists, and some other Criticks, that the History of Job is an entire continued Fiction (x). The Persons and Nations that are there called by their proper Names, the Testimonies of Tobit, of Ezekiel, and St. James, with the Opinions of the Ancient Fathers, ought to convince us that the Foundation of this History is real and true. But the manner wherein 'tis related, the Conversation that is held with the Devil, the Prolixity of the Discourses of Job's Friends, and of what Job himself delivered in his miserable estate, ought to make us acknowledge, that this History is mightily amplified and adorned with several feigned Circumstances, to render the Story more useful and agreeable. 'Tis commonly believed that Job lived before Moses, or at least in his time, and that the History related in this Book happen'd du∣ring the time when the Israelites were in the Desert, because there is not a Word spoken there about

the Written Law. Some there are who make Job to descend from Nahor, the Brother of Abraham, but (yz) others from Esan. The last Opinion seems to me to be the most probable, because 'tis supported by the Authority of a very ancient Addition, which is to be found at the end of the Greek Edition of the Book of Job.

Though the Psalms are commonly called The Psalms of David, or rather The Book of the Psalms of David; yet 'tis certain, as St. Jerome has observed in many places, that they are not all of 'em his (a a), and that there are some of them which were written long after his Death. 'Tis therefore a Col∣lection of Songs that was made by Ezrah. It is a difficult matter to say who are the Authors (b b), and to distinguish those that were made by David, from those that were composed by others. But whoever were the Author 'tis certain, as Theodoret has judiciously observed, that they were compo∣sed by Persons inspired by God, and that they are cited under that Character both in the Old and New Testament (c c).

The Authors of the following Books are better known; the Proverbs or Parables belong to Salo∣mon, whose Name is written in the beginning of that Book, The Proverbs of Salomon the Son of David. 'Tis observed in the 25th Chapter, that the following Parables are still Salomon's, but that they were collected by some Persons chosen by the King Hezekiah; These are also the Proverbs of Salomon, which the Men of Hezekiah King of Judah copied out. The 30th Chapter begins with these Words. The Words of Agur the Son of Jakeh, which shew that this Chapter is an Addition made to the Proverbs of Salomon by one Agur, as is easie to be proved, because this Chapter is entirely separated from the rest, and besides is written in another Style. In short, the last Chapter is entituled, The Words of King Le∣muel. We ought therefore to conculde, from what has been said, that the 24 first Chapters are Sa∣lomon's Originally, that the five following ones are Extracts or Collections of his Proverbs, and that the two last Chapters were added afterwards.

The Book of Ecclesiastes is ascribed to Salomon by all Antiquity: And yet the Talmudists have made Hezekiah the Author of this Book, and Grotius, upon some slight Conjectures, pretends it was com∣posed by Zorobabel. It begins with these Words, The Words of the Preacher, the Son of David, King of Jerusalem: Which may be applied to Hezekiah as well as to Salomon: But what is said of that Wis∣dom in several places, which was peculiar to him, and in the second Chapter of his Riches and Power, determines that we ought rather to understand it of Salomon.

The Song of Songs, that is to say, a Song by way of Excellence, is allowed to be Salomon's by the Con∣sent of the Synagogue and the Church. The Talmudists attribute it to Ezrah, but without any Grounds.

The Book of Wisdom is commonly said to be Salamon's (e e), but this Opinion is not very probable. For, 1. This Book is not to be found in the Hebrew. 2. It was never received into the Hebrew Canon. 3. 'Tis evident, as St. Jerome has observed, that the Style is extreamly different from that of Salomon, and that it was composed by a Greek. The same St. Jerome observes, that it was commonly attribu∣ted to Philo, which we are to understand of an older Philo than him whose Works we have. How∣ever, it appears plainly, that it was composed by a Hellenist Jew, who had a mind to imitate the Books of Salomon, from whom he has borrowed abundance of Thoughts.

The Preface which is before the Book of Ecclesiasticus, and the Fifth Chapter of that Book, inform us, that the Author thereof was a Jew, named Jesus the Son of Syrach, who composed it in Hebrew, and which was translated into Greek by his Grand-Son. St. Jerome tells us, he saw in his time an He∣brew Copy of it (f f). Some of the Ancients attribute it to Salomon (g g), perhaps because of the re∣semblance of the Subject, and the Thoughts, which is so great, that 'tis visible he design'd to imitate him, and that several Thoughts are taken from him.

The Books of the Prophets carry the Names of their Authors undisputed. Isaiah is the first and most excellent of the Prophets. He was the Son of Amos, whom we are by no means to mistake for the Prophet of the same Name (h h). He Prophesied from the end of the Reign of Uzziah, to the time of Manasses, by whose Command, they say, he was cruelly slain, and sawn asunder with a Wooden Saw (i). He himself collected into one Volume all those Prophecies which he delivered under Uzziah, Jotham, Ahas and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah. Besides these, he wrote a Book of the Actions of Uz∣ziah, which is mention'd in the 2d of Chron. Chap. 26. Verse 22. Some Apocryphal Books are ascri∣bed to him; amongst others, that famous one so often quoted by Origen; and another, intituled, The Ascension of Isaiah, which St. Jerome, and St. Epiphanius mention; and a later one likewise, called, The Vision of Isaiah. Some have pretended that this Book of Isaiah which we have, is only compiled out of the Works of Isaiah; but the Conjectures which they bring to prove it, are extreamly frivolous (k k).

Jeremiah, born in a Village near Jerusalem, of Sacerdotal Extraction, began to Prophesie about the end of the Reign of Josiah, when he was very young, and continued his Prophecies till after the Cap∣tivity of the Jews in Babylon. He was not carried away with the other Jews into that City; but tar∣rying in his own Country to lament its Destruction, he was afterwards taken Prisoner, and carried into Egypt along with his Disciple Baruch; where, as 'tis commonly believed, he was stoned to Death. The Fathers think that he always lived in the state of Celiba••y. We are told in the beginning of the 36 Chapter, that King Jehoiachim having burnt the Book of his Prophecies, this Prophet composed a new Volume larger and stronger than the former. He afterwards added those Prophecies, which he made till the Babylonian Captivity, and those which he delivered in Egypt. In the 50th and 51 Chap. he foretels all that was to come to pass in Babylon, and these he transmitted thither by Saraiah the Son of Neriah. The 52d Chapter does not belong to him, for his Prophecies terminated at the end of the 51 Chapter, as appears by these Words, Thus far are the Words of Jeremiah. It was rather written by Baruch, or Ezrah, and contains an Account of taking of Jerusalem, and of what happen'd during the

tivity of the Jews in Babylon, after the Death of Isaiah. It serves to illustrate the Prophecies of Jere∣miah, and particularly his Lamentations, which follow in order, and make another part of the Works of Jeremiah. In this last Book one sees the Ruine and Desolation of Jerusalem painted in lively Co∣lours, and especially the Grief and Concern of the Prophet upon occasion of that mournful Scene. It has a Preface in the Greek and Vulgar Latin, which is to be found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee Paraphrase, nor in the Syriac, and seems plainly to have been added to explain the Argu∣ment of the Book. In short, these Lamentations end with a Prayer to God. The Style of Jeremiah, if we may be determined by St. Jerome's Testimony, is Simple in its Expressions, and Majestick in its Sense. But this Simplicity of Language does not appear to us at present. On the contrary, we find him Elevated and Sublime, both in his Sense, in the Turn, and the Majesty of his Expression.

The Prophesie of Baruch, who was the Disciple and Secretary of Jeremiah, formerly made up but one Book with that of this Prophet. Josephus reports that Baruch was descended of an Illustrious Family, and that he perfectly understood the Language of his own Country. We are told in the first Chapter, Verse the first, That he wrote this Prophesie in Babylon, but we don't certainly know the time (l l.) The Hebrew Copy of Baruch is lost, though we need not doubt but it was written in that Tongue. There is a Letter in the Syriac, which by some is attributed to Baruch, but 'tis very clear that it is written by a Christian. The Epistle to the Captives of Babylon, which we find in Baruch, belongs to Jeremiah. The Author of the second Book of the Maccabees has mention'd it; it is exactly the Style of that Prophet, and contains nothing but what is very agreeable to the time in which it was written.

Ezekiel, the Son of Buzi the Priest, having been carried away into Babylon under Jeconiah, began to Prophecy in the fifth Year of the Captivity, and was slain, as 'tis commonly believed, by a Prince of that Nation, whom he reproved for his Adoration of Idols. His Prophesies are dark and obscure. St. Jerome says, his Style is neither very eloquent nor very mean, but between both.

Daniel, one of the Royal Family, was sent captive into Babylon, when he was but an Infant. The Jews don't reckon him amongst their Prophets: But the Christians, following the Authority of Je∣sus Christ, who gives him that Title in St. Matthew, Chap. 24. Vers. 15. look upon him under that Quality and Character: And indeed there is no dispute, but what he has wrote, deserves the name of Prophecy, as the Jews themselves are obliged to confess. But they don't give him the name of a Prophet, because he lived a Life extreamly different from that of the other Prophets, and rather like one of the Great Men of Babylon: Besides, they think that he was an Eunuch, and there is a passage in his Book seems to confirm it (m m.) 'Tis certain, that the first Chapters of Daniel's Prophesies are undoubtedly his, though we have reason to doubt of the Antiquity and Truth of the two later, which contain the History of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon (n n.) The four first Chapters in Da∣niel are written in Hebrew, the following ones, as far as the 18th Chapter, in Chaldee, and were af∣terwards translated into Hebrew. The last are written originally in Greek.

The Twelve lesser Prophets composed but one Book among the Hebrews. Hosea the Son of Beeri is the first (o o.) He prophesied in the Days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, Kings of Ju∣dah; and 'tis very plain, that he wrote this Prophecy, because he frequently speaks of himself in the first Person. There is one passage in his Book that appears very extraordinary, and that is, God's com∣manding him to take a Wife of Whoredoms, and Children of Whoredoms. But either this ought to be simply understood of a Vision, as St. Jerome pretends, or we are to suppose that God did not com∣mand him to commit Adultery, but only to espouse a Prostitute, as St. Basil and St. Austin have ex∣plain'd this place. The Style of this Prophet is very pathetick, and full of short lively Sentences, as St. Jerome has observed.

The Prophet Joel follows Hosea (p p) in St. Jerome's Edition; but we don't certainly know the time when he Prophecied (q q.) Some Persons believe that he is more ancient than Amos; others say that he did not write till after the Captivity of the Ten Tribes; and there are plausible Conjectures both of one side and the other. According to some he was of the Tribe of Gad, but others place him in the Tribe of Reuben.

Amos, a Herdsman of Tekoah, a Village two Leagues from Bethlehem to the South, was chosen of God to be a Prophet in the time of Uzziah King of Judah, and of Jeroboam the Son of Joash King of Israel, two Years before the Earthquake, which happen'd in the 24th or 25th Year of Uzziah.

The time of Obadiah's Prophecying is altogether unknown (r r.) St. Jerome, with the Jews, be∣lieves that this Prophet was he, that was Governor of the House of King Ahab, who is mentioned in the first Book of Kings, Chap. 18. Vers. 4. he that fed the Hundred Prophets. Others believe he is the same with that Obadiah, whom Josiah made Supervisor of the Building of the Temple, who is mentioned in the second Book of Chronicles, Chap. 34. Vers. 12. Most People make him Contempo∣rary with Hosea, Amos and Joel. Some after all, believe that he lived in the time of Jeremiah, after the taking of Jerusalem.

Jonah, the Son of the Prophet Amittai (s s,) of the City of Gath, near Diocesarea, of the Tribe of Zabulon in Galilee, Prophecied under King Jeroboam, Uzziah and Azariah. God sent him to the City of Ninive to Preach Repentance there, and his Book is an Account of his Message and Journey. He has written another Prophecy mention'd in the Book of Kings. This Book which we have, seems to be quoted by Tobit in the 14th Chapter, Verse the 4th, and is approved by our Saviour Jesus Christ himself.

The Prophet Micah, born at Morasthi, a Village of Palestine in the Tribe of Judah, Prophecied un∣der the Reign of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, after the Prophets of whom we have spoken already,

but before Jeremiah, who cites him in the 26th Chapter. He is a different Person from him, who lived in the time of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, and 'tis commonly believed that he died a Martyr.

We don't certainly know the Country of the Prophet Nahum: Nor have we any better Assuran∣ces of the Time wherein he lived. His mentioning the Destruction of Ninive, makes some think that he lived in the Time of Sardanapalus, under Jeash and Jehu; which if it were so, he wou'd be the most ancient of the Prophets. Josephus is of Opinion, that he lived in the Time of Jotham, and that he foretold the Ruine of Ninive, which happen'd many Years after the time of Josiah. St. Jerome, Theodoret and Theophylact, say he Prophecied after the Captivity of the Israelites; others say under Hez••kiah, and some under Manasses. The most received Opinion is, that he Prophecied after the Captivity of the Ten Tribes by Shalmanezer, before Sennacherib's Expedition against the Tribe of Judah, which is foretold in the first Chapter of his Prophecy.

Nor have we any better Information either of the Country or time of the Prophet Habakkuk▪ The Jews say that he Prophecied in the time of Manasses, or Jehoiachim, a little before the Captivity. St. Epiphanius, and the false Epiphanius, make him Contemporary with Zedekiah and Jeremiah. Others say he lived in Josiah's time, St. Jerome in Daniel's, confounding him with that Habakkuk who is mentioned by that Prophet. The most probable Opinion is, that he lived under the Reign of Manasses, whose iniquities he seems to describe in his first Chapt. Vers. 13, and 14. and before the Expedition of the Chaldeans against the Jews, which he foretells in the first Chapt. Vers. the 6th, as well as their Destruction Chapt. the 2d, Vers. the 3d.

The time wherein Zephaniah Prophecied, is exactly marked out to us in these Words at the be∣ginning of his Prophecy, The Word of the Lord came unto Zephaniah, the Son of Cushi, the Son of Ge∣daliah, the Son of Amariah, the Son of Hizkiah, in the days of Josiah the Son of Amon King of Judah. We don't know from what Country he came. St. Cyril makes him to have been of Noble Extracti∣on, because he mentions his Ancestors.

Haggai, and the two following Prophets, Prophecied not till after the return of the Jews from the Captivity of Babylon. It is said in the beginning of Haggai's Prophecy, that it was written in the second Year of Darius (tt) the Son of Hystaspes, and the sixth Month.

Zechariah, the Son of Barachiah, Grand-Son of Iddo (uu,) wrote his Prophecy in the same Year of Darius, two Months after the Prophet Haggai, as he himself has observed in the beginning of his Prophecy. He is a different Person from that Zechariah, of whom Isaiah speaks in his eighth Chap∣ter (xx,) and of him that was slain by the Command of King Joash between the Temple and the Altar, 2 Chron▪ 24. 20.

Malachi, whose Name in Hebrew signifies My Angel (yy,) Prophecied since Haggai and Zechari∣ah, after the Rebuilding of the Temple, For the two former exhort the People to build the Tem∣ple, but he exhorts them to observe the Law, and offer their Sacrifices with purity; which does ne∣cessarily suppose that the Temple was already rebuilt. Besides this, the Disorders for which he re∣proves the Jews, are the very same with those which Nehemiah lays to their charge, which is a mani∣fest Argument that they both lived in the same time. Malachi is the last of the Prophets; and as there was none other to succeed him till the coming of Jesus Christ, so he concludes his Prophecy with an Exhortation to the Jews to observe the Law of Moses, and wait for the great and dreadful Day of the Lord, who should turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and the Hearts of the Children to their Fathers. All which clearly and expresly sets before us St. John Baptist, and Jesus Christ.

The two Books of the Maccabees were not written by the same Person, as the sensible difference of the Style, of the Chronology, and the History sufficiently shew (zz.) We don't know who is the Authour of the first; 'tis indeed very probable that it was Originally written in Hebrew, and af∣terwards translated into Greek and Latin. The second is an Abridgment or Epitome of Jason, who was one of the Jews of Cyrene, as it appears by the Preface of that Book, which begins Chap. 2. Vers. 23. It is preceded by two Letters of the Jews at Jerusalem to the Jews inhabiting Egypt, added by the Author of this Abridgment which he has made with a great deal of Liberty. These two Books are called The Books of the Maccabees, from the Name of Judas the Son of Mattathias, Sir-named Maccabeus, because he had placed in his Banner the first Hebrew Letters of the Words of a cer∣tain Sentence in Exodus (aaa) which being joyned together make that word. These two Books contain the History of the Jews under the Government of the Greeks, from the Reign of Alexander to that of Demetrius Soter, whch comprehends the space of Forty Years, or thereabouts, and they conclude an Hundred and Thirty Years before the Coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

NOTES.

(a) THere is no Paradox more dangerous than the Opinion of those who have presumed to deny that the Pentateuch was composed by Moses.] I have already observed in the first Edition, that this Paradox was started by Rabbi Aben Ezra, because he is the first that raised these Objections, which have occasioned some Persons to believe, that Moses was not the Author of the Pentateuch; and though he durst not openly declare his Opini∣on in this Matter, yet he expresses himself after such a Manner, that it will evidently appear that he was not heartily perswaded that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. For in his Explication of these Words in Deuteronomy, Behold what Moses

said to the Israelites that were beyond Jordan, he not only makes use of this passage to shew that this Book was not Moses's, but he musters up the most terrible Objections he could raise for this purpose. You will know the Truth, says he, if you comprehend the Mystery of the Twelve: Moses wrote the Law: The Canaanites were then in the Land: In the Mountain of the Lord it shall be seen: Be∣hold his Iron Bed: Words which allude to some passages in the Pentateuch, and which he uses to prove; that it was not written by Moses. And 'tis principally upon the Authority and Reasons of this Rabbi that Hobbs, Pererius, and Spinosa, established their Doctrine, when they publickly maintain'd that the Pantateuch was not written by Moses. To these Authors we may add Mon∣sieur Simon, who has wrote a Book, called, A Cri∣tical History of the Old Testament. I was not wil∣ling to name him in the first Edition of this Vo∣lume, though I took occasion then to confute his Reasons; but since he has been pleased to declare that he was the Person, whom I meant, in a Let∣ter to Monsieur Labbe a Doctor of the Faculty, he ought not to resent it as an Injury, if I attack him by name, and endeavour to shew, that his Hypothesis about the Books of Moses is a rash and dangerous as Spinosa's.

Monsieur Simon lays down his Opinion in the first Chapter of the first Book of his Critical Hi∣story, p. 3. of Leer's Edition. When we suppose that there have been such publick Scribes, we ascribe to them all the Historical part of the Pentateuch, and to Moses all that belongs to the Laws and Ordinan∣ces; and 'tis this which the Scripture calls the Law of Moses. And so one may say in this sense, that all the Pentateuch is really and truly written by Moses, because those persons that made the Collection lived in his time, and what they did was by his particular Direction. He says the very same thing in his 2d Chap. p. 17. 'Tis therefore not improbable that there were in Moses's time such sort of Prophets, who were necessary to the State, because they preserved the most considerable Actions that passed in their Commonwealth. This being granted we shall distin∣guish in these five Books of the Law that which was written by Moses, from what was written by the Pro∣phets and publick Scribes: We may attribute to Moses the Commandments and Ordinances which he gave the People, in lieu of which we may suppose these same publick Scribes to have been the Authors of the grea∣test part of this History. In the seventh Chapter, p. 50. he adds: As for what concerns the Books of Mo∣ses, such as they now are in the Collection which we have, the Additions that have been made to the ancient Acts hinder us from discerning what is truly his, and what has been added by those who succeeded him, or by the Authors of the last Collection. Besides, this Compilation being now and then Epitomized out of the ancient Memoirs, one cannot be assured, that the Genealogies there are set down in their full length and extent.

From these Principles of Monsieur Simon, it fol∣lows in the first place, that Moses is not the Au∣thor of the greatest part of the Pentateuch, for the Controversie here is not about some few Passages that are of small consequence, but even those that make up the Body and principal Part of the Pen∣tateuch; Moses according to his Notions, being only concerned about the Laws and Ordinances, has no share in any thing besides, and so the Hi∣story of the Creation, and of the Deluge, in a word, all Genesis, and whatever has a relation to the Historical part, is taken away from Moses. It is to no purpose to say, as he has done already, p. 3. That one may say, that all the Pentateuch is Moses's, because they that made the Collection lived in his time, and did nothing but by his order. For would it not be a Jest to ascribe to Moses the Works of the publick Scribes of his time? If this were really true, a Man might ascribe all publick Registers to those Kings and Princes, in whose time, and by whose order, they were compiled: But what is a great deal more surprizing, Monsieur Si∣mon, or at least one of his Zealous Defenders, aban∣dons this Hypothesis as not to be maintained, and acknowledges that there is no convincing proof to make us believe there weresuch publick Scribes di∣vinely inspired in the time of Moses. This is ta∣ken notice of in a Marginal Note of the 17th Page of his Critical History, and the same Edition that we cited before. We find in truth, says the Author of that Remark, this sort of publick Scribes in the time of the Kings amongst the Hebrews.… but we find no Foot-steps of them in the Books of Moses. The Author of the Answer to a Letter which Mon∣sieur Spanheim wrote against F. Simon confesses the same thing. If you now demand of me, what is my Opinion concerning these publick Scribes; I answer, That it would be very hard to reject 'em totally… In the mean time I don't altogether agree with him as to the time, wherein he pretends, that these Pro∣phets were Established in the Jewish Commonwealth for the Reasons he brings, and indeed the greater part of his Authorities clearly suppose, that this happened after Moses. If this Letter was Monsieur Simon's, as the World was inclined to believe, he cannot pos∣sibly excuse himself from having dealt very trea∣cherously in a matter of the highest consequence a∣bout Religion, since he has established the truth of the Pentateuch upon a supposition, which he himself acknowledges to be either false or uncer∣tain. But suppose this Letter was not his, it shows at least, that those persons who are the most favourable to his Hypothesis, freely own 'tis impossible to prove there were any of these pub∣lick Scribes divinely Inspired in Moses's time; and consequently that Monsieur Simon, who has groun∣ded the validity of the Pentateuch upon this Hy∣pothesis, has done it upon a very weak Founda∣tion, even in the judgment of those Criticks who stand up the strongest for him. Thus Monsieur Simon alledges this Conjecture as only a matter of probability. In the second place, Monsieur Simon has of himself ruined whatever he says of the An∣tiquity and Authority of the Pentateuch, by con∣fidently asserting, as he has done in the third pas∣sage we quoted, that the Pentateuch, in the con∣dition we find it in at present, is only an Abridg∣ment of the ancient Acts that were made in the time of Moses, and that 'tis impossible to discern what is ancient, and what is not. Is not this for∣mally to deny that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch, and that the Books which we now have are not so ancient, as is pretended?

In a word, he establishes the Authority of the Books of Scripture upon the pretended Inspirati∣on

of certain Scribes or Keepers of the publick Re∣gisters, whom he believes to have been from time to time among the Jews. Now nothing is more uncertain than the Existence or Inspiration of these publick Scribes, as we shall shew in the fol∣lowing Pages.

(b) By express Texts of Holy Scripture.] It is very certain that Moses wrote the Law, and that in Scripture we are to understand the Pentateuch by the Law. Exod. 24. v. 4. and 7. Moses wrote all the Words of the Law, and took the Book of the Co∣venant, and read it in the audience of the People. Deut. 31. v. 19, and 22. Moses therefore wrote this Law, and gave it to the Priests the Sons of Levi… and to all the Elders of Israel. In Exodus, ch. 17. v. 14. God commanded Moses to write the Law, and give it to Joshuah. And in the Book of Jo∣shuah, ch. 1. v. 7, and 8. God tells him, That the Volume of the Law which he received from Moses ought to be always in his mind; This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night… that thou mayst observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my Servant commanded thee. Now tho' the Word Law may indeed be applied to one part of the Pentateuch, yet we ought to take notice, that it is generally taken in Scripture for the whole Pen∣tateuch. And 'tis certain, that in the 31st Chap∣ter of Deuteronomy, where it is said, Moses there∣fore wrote this Law, it is meant of all this Book, and the Passage of Joshuah ought likewise to be understood of the whole Law. To this may be ad∣ded, that in the other Books of the Old Testament, they always consider the entire Pentateuch as the the Work of Moses. In the first of Kings, ch. 2. v. 3. David speaking to Salomon, tells him, That the Ceremonies, Precepts, and Laws of the Jews, were written in the Law of Moses; Keep the Charge of the Lord thy God to walk in his Ways, to keep his Statutes and Commandments, and his Judgments, and his Testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses. It is therefore believed, that all the Pen∣tateuch, which contains these Ceremonies, Precepts, and Judgments, was the Law of Moses. All the Law is likewise attributed to Moses in the second Book of Kings, ch. 21, and 23. v. 8. v. 25. If they observe all the Law of Moses. In the second Book of Chronicles, ch. 23. v. 18. To offer the Burnt-Offer∣ings of the Law as it is written in the Law of Mo∣ses. Is not Leviticus therefore Moses's Book? That which is delivered in the 30th, 31st, and 35th Chap∣ters of the same Book, is taken out of Leviticus and Numbers; are they not therefore the Books of Moses? In the 25th Chapter, Deuteronomy is cited as one of Moses's Books; As it is written in the Law in the Book of Moses, the Father shall not die for the Children: Which Words are to be found in the 24th Chapter of Deuteronomy. Levi∣ticus quoted by Baruch, ch. 2. as a Book that was written by Moses; As thou speakest by thy Servant Moses, in the day when thou didst command him to write thy Law, before the Children of Israel saying, If ye will not hear, &c. Which words are in the 26th Chapter of Leviticus, v. 14. In the second Book of Kings, ch. 22, and 23. as also in the se∣cond Book of Chronicles, ch. 34. it is said, that Hil∣kiah found a Book of the Law of Moses's writ∣ten, perhaps, with his own hand, as these words seem to imitate, Per manum Moysi. This Book of the Law, according to Josephus, is all the Penta∣teuch, according to others Deuteronomy. How∣ever it is, yet it follows from hence at least, that Deuteronomy is his. Now Deuteronomy supposes, that the other Books of the Law were written, because it is as it were an Abridgment, and upon that acccount is called Deuteronomy, or The Se∣cond Law. In the ninth Chapter of Daniel, it is said, that the Curse, which is written in the Book of Moses, is fallen upon the Jews, and in the tenth Verse the words of Deuteronomy and Exo∣dus are particularly cited. The Prophet Malachi, ch. 4. exhorts the Jews to remember the Law of Moses. Raguel, in the 7th Chapter of Tobit, says, He will give his Daughter in Marriage to Tobias, to obey the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is frequently repeated in the Psalms; the 77th, 104th, 105th, 135th Psalms, contain the History of the Israelites, which is plainly taken out of the Pen∣tateuch. The Law of Moses is often cited in Ezrah; (Ez. 9. 10. 23.) the Passages cited in these places are to be found in the Books of the Penta∣teuch. In the 10th Chapter of Nehemiah, v. 29. the Israelites oblige themselves by a new kind of an Oath, to keep the Law and Precepts of Moses. Now among these Precepts, there are several that are taken out of the Books of the Pentateuch. In the second Book of Maccabees, ch. 7. Eleazar saith, I will not obey the King's Commandment, but that of the Law, which was given unto Our Fathers by Moses. Lastly, whatever is taken out of the Pentateuch in the New Testament, is always cited under the name of the Law of Moses. St. James in the 15th Chapter of the Acts, says, The Jews read Moses every Sabbath day in their Synagogues; Moses of old time hath in every City them that Preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day. And St. Paul, in his Epistles, says, That the Jews did not understand Moses, although they read him; Usque in hodiernum diem cum legitur Moses. Therefore they did not in the least doubt, that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, since they tell us, that those who read that Book, read Moses. All these Passages make it very evident in the first place, that Moses wrote the Law of the Jews. Se∣condly, That by the name of the Law, we ought to understand, the Pentateuch. Thirdly, That not only Deuteronomy, but also all the other Books of the Pentateuch, have been cited in Scripture for the Books and Law of Moses. Fourthly, That this has ever passed for a constant truth, of which no body doubted. Fifthly, That they not only be∣lieved Moses to be the Author of the things con∣tained in these Books, but of the Books themselves, so that when they read them, one might say, they read Moses; as when we read the Aeneids, we say, we read Virgil.

(c) By the Authority of Jesus Christ.] In St. John, ch. 5. There is one one that accuseth you, (saith our Saviour) even Moses in whom ye trust: For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me, for he wrote of me. 'Tis plain therefore that Moses wrote, and that he wrote those Books, which the Jews read for his. Now who doubts that these Books were the Pentateuch. And indeed since our Saviour does always distinguish the Prophets from the Law of Moses, by the Law he can mean

only the Pentateuch. In the first Chapter of St. John, Philip saith to Nathaniel, We have found him, of whom Moses in the Law, and the Pro∣phets did write. There are many other places where our Saviour cites the Books of the Penta∣teuch under the name of the Law, and conse∣quently we ought not to doubt, that he has as∣sured us that these Books were written by Mo∣ses.

St. Luke, in the 24th Chapter of his Gospel, saith, That our Saviour beginning with Moses, and continuing with the Prophets, Expounded to his Disciples, who were going to Emmaus, the Things that were said concerning himself in the Scriptures. Therefore Moses was the most anci∣ent Author of the Jews, and the Pentateuch was acknowledged to be written by him, as they owned the Books of the Prophets to be written by the Prophets.

(d) The Consent of all Nations.] 'Tis certain, that not only the Jews were always of opinion, that these Books were written by Moses, but also that all People have considered Moses as the Au∣thor of the Law and Religion of the Jews. 'Tis the unanimous Consent of all Nations, and all Men, no one ever questioning the Truth of it before these last Ages. Huetius maintains, that all Religions have borrowed their Theology out of the Books of Moses, whose History they have purposely altered and disguised, to accommodate it the better to their Fables. He pretends, for Instance, That Adonis of the Phaenicians; that Mercury, Osiris, Serapis, Anubis, and the other Gods of the Aegyptians; that Zoroaster of the Persians, and the Divinities of the Western Na∣tions; that Cadmus, Apollo, Priapus, Aesculapius, Prometheus, and the other Gods of the Graecians; that Janus, Faunus, Vertumnus, Evander of the Latins; in a word, that all these Fabulous Deities, were taken out of the Books of Moses, but dis∣guised according to the Pagan manner, and put into a new Dress. But these Conjectures being only Probabilities, and no more, cannot serve to demon∣strate a Truth, which does not need such Sup∣ports, as being clearly established upon indispu∣table Principles.

(e) And by the Authen••ick Testimonies of the most ancient Authors.] That is, a continued Tra∣dition of Authors from the Times that came nearest to Moses down to ours; and as we cannot doubt that Homer's Poem is his, because all Wri∣ters that have appeared since his Age have attri∣buted it to him; so neither can we reasonably doubt, that these Books were written by Moses. They commonly produce the Authority of San∣choniathon, who, as they give out, lived before the Trojan War, and wrote the History of the Phoenicians, Translated afterwards into Greek by Philo Byblius, where he has borrowed several Pas∣sages out of the Books of Moses. But 'tis not certain that this Author is so ancient as they pre∣tend. They likewise affirm, that Homer and He∣siod have taken many things out of him, and 'tis indeed extreamly probable. The same thing has been observed of the Philosophers, as Thales, Py∣thagoras, Anaxagoras, Socrates, and Plato, but all this is said by Conjecture. We ought therefore to rely principally upon the Testimony of those Authors, who tell us positively, that Moses was the Chief Leader and Law-giver of the Jews, such as Manetho, cited by Josephus in his first Book a∣gainst Appion, Philochorus the Athenian, whom the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles, commonly said to be St. Justin, mentions; Eu∣polemus, cited by the same Author; Eupolemus, cited by Alexander Polyhistor, mentioned by Eu∣sebius; Apollonius Molo, cited by Josephus; Castor, cited by the Author of the Exhortation to the Gen∣tiles; Diodorus Siculus, produced by the same Authors, and by St. Cyril in his first Book against Julian, though in our Copies he does not make mention of Moses, but of Mnuës, who is the Osiris of the Aegyptians; Chaeremon Author of the Ae∣gyptian History, cited by Josephus; Trogus Pompei∣us, Epitomized by Justin, who makes Moses the Author of the Jewish Laws; Nicolaus Damasce∣nus, cited by Josephus; Mendesius, cited by the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles, by Ta∣tian, by Eusebius, and by St. Cyril. S••rabo, who makes Moses the Author of the Religion and Laws of the Jews; Appion, who although an Enemy to the Jews, yet supposes that Moses gave 'em their Laws; Juvenal, who speaks of the Volumes of Moses, Sat. 14. Tradidit arcano quodcunque vo∣lumine Moses. Ptolomy of Alexandria, who calls him the Legislator of the Jews; Pliny, Tacitus, and Justin, who have observed the same thing; Numenius, who has taken notice that Plato was a Grecizing Moses; Longinus, who commends the beginning of Genesis, and produces a Passage in it as an Example of Sublimeness, calling the Author in these words, The wise Law-giver of the Jews; Porphyry and Julian, who wrote against the Christian Religion, yet acknowledged that the Books of the Pentateuch were written by Moses. To these we may add several Authors, who have delivered Histories down to Posterity, that were undeniably taken out of the Pentateuch, such as Hecataeus, Berosus, Abydenus, Manetho, Eupolemus, Alexander, Polyhistor, Artapanus, Demetrius the Jew, and many others, cited by Josephus in his first Book against Appion, by the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles, by Clemens Alexandri∣nus, by Eusebius in his Books De Praep. Evang. I have not mentioned Philo, Josephus, and the o∣ther Jews, because they all take it for granted that Moses is the Author of the Jewish Laws, meaning by these words, the five Books of the Pentateuch. The Samaritan Pentateuch affords us yet more convincing Proofs; for after the division of the People of Israel, which happened under Rehoboam the Son of Salomon, the ten Tribes pre∣served the Pentateuch written in the Samaritan Character, which is the ancient Character of the Hebrews, from whence we may rationally con∣clude, that at that time they had the Pentateuch in the same condition, as it is in at present, which they constantly ascribe to Moses. One cannot with any tolerable pretence question the Antiqui∣ty of the Samaritan Pentateuch, since it is written in Characters, which were not in use after the Babylonish Captivity. The Version of the Septua∣gint, which is assuredly very ancient, is likewise another Proof that the Books of the Pentateuch are written by Moses. In a word, all those who have spoken of the Pentateuch, whether Jews,

Christians, or Pag••ns, have taken it for granted, that these Books were written by Moses. And certainly 'tis extravagant 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to oppose a few weak ill-grounded. Conjectures to the Universal Consent of all Mankind.

(f) And consequently Ruine the Foundation of our Religion.] One of the great Proofs of the Truth of our Religion, is its Antiquity, which is principally supported by the Antiquity of the Books of the Law. Now if they are not Moses's, and if they carry a fa••••e Name, what Proof can we give of their Antiquity? This is the ready way to give occasion to Libertines to Ridicule 'em, and consider▪ 'em only as Fabulous Books, composed at pleasure by the later Jews after the Captivity.

(g) If what they alledged were true, yet they could only prove.] Here are the Objections which Rabbi Aben-Ezra, Spinosa, the Author of the Book of the Praeadomites, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Simon, and some o∣thers, propose against the Antiquity of the Books of Moses, and the Answers to them, from which we shall better discern their Weakness.

The first Objection is drawn from these words of Deuteronomy; Behold the Words which Moses spoke before all the Congregation of Israel beyond Jordan. This could not be written, say they, by Moses, who never passed the Jordan, no more than the Children of Israel did, while he was alive. An∣swer. The Hebrew word, as Vatablus observes, may 〈◊〉〈◊〉 on this side as well as on the other side. Pigninus, Buxtorf, and all Persons that are conversant in Hebrew are of the ••ame opinion. It literally signifies, In 〈◊〉〈◊〉, in transeundo; In their passage, being ready to pafs. Thus this Ob∣jection that appeared so terrible at first sight, car∣ries indeed no difficulty with it.

Second Objection. In the Pentateuch, Moses is always spoken of in the third Person. He is com∣mended there in several places, as in Numbers, ch. 12. where he is called, The meekest man upon earth; as also in Deuteronomy, ch. 34. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses. And is it credible that Moses would have thus com∣mended himself? Answer. 'Tis ordinary for those who compose a History, where themselves are con∣cerned, to speak of themselves in the third Per∣son. Caesar in his Commentaries always speaks of his own Actions in the third Person. Josephus does the same thing in his History of the Wars of the Jews. St. John in his Gospel speaks like∣wise of himself in the third Person; The Disciple, says he, whom Jesus loved. And in another place, If I will that he tarry, what is that to you? St. Matthew relating his own Conversion, speaks of himself in the third Person, and some fay, that St. Luke was one of the two Disciples, whom our Saviour met going towards Emmaus. The Praises which Moses gives himself are not excessive. It was necessary that in his own Books he should take notice of the signal Favours which God had con••e••••ed upon him, as well as conceal none of his own Miscarriages. Josephus and Caesar often commend themselves after the same manner.

Third Objection. In the 12th Chapter of Gene∣sis the Author has this remarkable Parenthesis, And the Canaanite was then in the Land. Which makes it evident, say they, that this was written when the Canaanites were no longer in Palaestine, otherwise this Advertisement had been imperti∣nent. Now 'tis plain, they were not chased out of that Land till a long time after Moses's death, and consequently he is not the Author of this Book. Answer. Since these words, Cananaeus erat in terr•• ill••, bear this sense, it may be reasonably supposed, that this Parenthesis was inserted after Moses's time. This is an usual thing, and it often happens that these sorts of Explications, which at first were written in the Margin, to illustrate the Text, afterwards were inserted into the Text by way of Parenthesis. But one may likewise say, that these words Cananaeus aute•• erat in terr••, don't signifie Olim erat in terrâ, but Jam tum erat in terrâ, i. e. That Moses speaking of the passage of Abraham through the Land of Sichem, ob∣serves, that the Canaanites were then in the Land. Thus the sense is natural, and no ways forced.

Fourth Objection. In Genesis, ch. 22. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 14. the Mountain Moria is called The Mountain of the Lord, who will provide; App••llavitque Abraham nomen loci illius, Dominus videt. Now, say they, it had not this Name, till after it was set apart to make a Temple there. Answer. But how do they know this? For is not the contrary expresly attested in that place of Genesis? And does it not appear, that this Mountain received the name of The Lord will provide, because of Abraham's An∣swer to his Son, My Son, God will provide?

Fifth Objection. In Deuteronomy, ch. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 10, and 11. where mention is made of Og•• King of Basan, 'tis said, That he alone was remaining of the Race of the Giants. Behold his Bedstead was a Bedstead of Iron, is it not in Rabbath of the Chil∣dren of Ammon? Nine C••bits was the length there∣of, and four C••bits the breadth of it. They say, these words make it evident, that the Author of Deuteronomy was of a later standing than Moses. For in the first place, why should Moses speak of this Bed, to prove the Greatness of this Giant, since all the Israelites might have beheld it them∣selves? 'Tis more probable to say, That this was written by an Author, who lived in a time▪ when they had no knowledge of this King. Secondly, Why was not this Bed any longer in the Land of Basan, but in Rab••ath of the Children of Ammon? In short, say they, this Bed was not discovered till the time of David, who subdued the Ammo∣nites, and took R••bbath, as we find it related in the second Book of Samuel, ch. 12. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 30. An∣swer. Supposing all this to be true, 'tis easily an∣swered, by saying that, as for what has a relati∣on to Og's Bed, it was added in a Parenthesis. But why might not Moses give an account of that Bed, to prove the Greatness of that Giant, even when he addressed himself to the Israelites, since perhaps he was▪ writing this Relation some considerable time after the King was ••••ain, and 'tis not to be imagined that all the Israelites had seen the Bed? But admit the Matter was not so, yet Moses might very well make use of this Proof to make the Matter of Fact credible to Posterity. Thus the Historians of our Time, when they oc∣casionally discourse of any extraordinary Thing, although it is never so well known to the World, yet they frequently say, We have such and such Proofs of it, the Monster is still kept in such a

place, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 As for what follows, that this Iron 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Land of Basan, and not in Rabbath this is all taken upon supposition, for whymight not the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 possess it in the time of Moses?

Sixth Objection. The Author of the Pentateuch, say they, give such Names to several Cities and Countries as they had not, till a long time after the Death of Moses. In Genesis, ch. 14. 'tis said, That Abraham pursued the Kings, who had carried way his Nephew Lot, as far as Dan. Now the Name of Dan was not given to this Country till a long time after, when six hundred Men of the Tribe of Dan took the City of Laish, and, after they had taken it, gave it the Name of their Tribe, as we read in the Book of Judges, ch. 18. The same Author likewise speaks often of the Ci∣ty of Hebron, which was not so called, till after the Death of Moses, from Hebron the Son of Ca∣l••••, to whom Joshuah gave it; formerly it was cal∣led Kirjah-Arba, as we are particularly informed in Joshuah, ch. 14. v. 15. In Deuteronomy, ch. 3. v. 14. it is said, That Jair the Son of Manasseh took all the Country of Argob unto the Coasts of Ge∣shuri, and Maachathi, and called them after his own name Bushan-Havoth-Jair unto this day. An∣swer. We may generally answer these Objecti∣ons thus, by saying, That these Names were changed after Moses's time, to render the History more intelligible to those, to whom the ancient Names of those Cities and Countries that Moses used, would be altogether unknown. But the first Difficulty may be cleared otherwise, by say∣ing, That the Name of Dan is more ancient than they pretend: That the River Jordan was so cal∣led, because it has its Original from two Springs Jor and Dan. So we may say there was another City of that Name called Dan or Danna, whereof mention is made in the 15th Chapter of Joshuah, Verse the 49th, which was in the Tribe of Judah, in the Country of Sodom. To the second In∣stance we may return this answer, That it is not clearly said in the Book of Joshuah, that Hebron gave his Name to the City of Kirjath-Arba, but only that the City of Hebron was formerly called by that Name. Which may be well enough un∣derstood of an ancient Name, which it had here∣••ofore. The last Difficulty is not considerable, 'tis only in these Words, Usque in praesentem diem. Now Moses might use this Expression to demon∣strate that Country more clearly, or perhaps it might be added after him.

Seventh Objection. The Author of the Penta∣teuch speaketh of things that happen'd after the Death of Moses, in Exodus, Chap. 16. Verse 35. it is said that the Children of Israel did eat Manna, Forty Years, until they came to a Land inhabited; they did eat Manna, until they came to the Borders of the Land of Canaan. Now this could not be writ∣ten by Moses, who died before the Forty Years were accomplished. After the same manner 'tis written in the 36th Chapter of Genesis, Verse 31. And these are the Kings that reigned in the Land of Ed••m, before there reigned any King over the Chil∣dren of Israel. Which words put it beyond con∣troversie, that he who wrote this, was alive after the Israelites had Kings set over them. To this we may add, that after this Author has given us a Catalogue of the eight Kings of the Edomites, he speaks of their Dukes. Now they had not Dukes in the place of their Kings till a long time after, as we may observe in the first Book of the Chronicles, Chap. 1. Verse 5. In short, 'tis said in Deuteronomy, Chap. 2. Verse 12. that the Sons of Esau dwelt in Seir, after they had driven out and destroyed the ancient Inhabitants called Horims▪ as the Children of Israel did unto the Land of their possession. Which passage, say they, seems to intimate, that the Israelites had subdued the Edomites when this was written. Answer. If all these places were to be taken in the sense that is given them, yet we might answer, that some of them have been since added, or that Moses sometimes spoke by a Pro∣phetick Spirit. But we need not run to such So∣lutions. Moses might say, that the Israelites should eat Manna Forty Years, knowing, as he certainly did, that they were to tarry so long in the De∣sert, as it appears in the 14th Chapter of the Book of Numbers. Moreover, God had revealed to Moses, that the Israelites should afterwards have a King, as it is clearly foretold in the 17th Chapter of Deuteronomy, Verse 14. The eight Kings of the Edomites there mentioned, might have reigned from Esau to Moses; and the Dukes, of whom he speaks, did not succeed the Kings, but govern'd at the same time. Lastly, these Words, As the Israelites did to the Land in their possession, don't at all signifie or intimate the Land of the Edomites, but the Land which was promi∣sed to the Israelites. And let not any one say, that the Israelites were not as yet in possession of the Land of Promise in Moses's time, since 'tis cer∣tain that the Tribes of Reuben and Gad, with a great part of that of Manas••e••, had possessed them∣selves of the Country of the Amorites, and of the Men of Basan, after they had put 'em to the Sword.

Eighth Objection. The strongest Argument at first view is the Death and Burial of Moses, which is described at the end of Deuteronomy. To this there are two Answers. The first of those, who say with Philo and Josephus, That Moses wrote it him∣self by a Spirit of Prophecy. The second, which is the more common and solid of the two, That this Account was added either by Joshuah, or by Ezrah; or lastly, by the Synagogue of the Jews, to make the History of the Pentateuch more per∣fect.

Ninth Objection. They say, That Moses is so far from being the Author of the Pentateuch, that the Author there cites Books that were composed by Moses; as The Book of the Covenant, Exod. 24. The Book of the Wars of the Lord, Numb. 21. 14. in which there was likewise written the War a∣gainst Amelek, which is mentioned in Exodus, Chap. 17. Verse 14. The Book of the Law of the Lord in Deuteronomy, Chap. 31. Verse 9. And lastly, a Song, which is referred to, in the two and thirtieth Chapter of Deuteronomy. From whence they conclude, that the Pentateuch was compo∣••ed out of the several Books of Moses. Answer. This Objection carries no force with it; for what should hinder Moses from citing the Books which he had formerly composed? Besides, should we grant that all these passages are to be understood of those Books that were written by Moses, it would not inva•…•… ou•• Opinion. But this

cannot certainly be proved. For in the first place, we don't know, whether there was any such Book or no that was intitul••d, The Battels of the Lord; for the Hebrew Text does not inti∣māte that it was already written, but that it might be. Neither is it evident whether there is any Book mentioned: For the Hebrew Word may signifie any manner of Narrative, and so the Words that are cited may bear this sense, As it will be related when the Israelites describe the Bat∣tels of the Lord. Mr. Simon quarrels with this In∣terpretation, which, I say, these Words will na∣turally bear; but however, he does not demon∣strate that they cannot be thus applied. Others understand this place of a certain Song, which they used to sing in honour of their Victories. It is not said in Exodus, Chap. 17. that the War of Amelek was written in the Book of the Battels of the Lord, but only God commanded Moses to write it, and 'tis that which he did in that place. That passage in Exodus, Chap. 24. does not prove that Moses wrote a Book of the Covenant, but only that being come down from the Mountain, he recited to the People the Laws which God had given him in the Mountain, which are set down in the preceding Chapters. And this it is which is called in that place The Book of the Covenant. The Book of the Law, of which mention is made in Deuteronomy, is not different from Deuteronomy it self. And after all, it is not improbable that Moses referred to a Song, which he himself had composed.

Tenth Objection. There were (says Mr. Simon) amongst the Hebrews, Prophets inspired by God, who had a particular Charge given 'em to pre∣serve in Writing the most important Actions that happened in that Government. 'Tis probable, there were several of these Prophets in the time of Moses, and then we may rationally suppose, that Moses, as a Legislator, wrote only the Edicts and Commandments which he gave to the Peo∣ple, and that he left the care of collecting and transmitting to Posterity the most considerable Passages of State to these above mentioned Scribes or Prophets. Answer. This Supposition is founded upon very uncertain Conjectures, and precarious Principles. The Egyptians, say they, had such Scribes or Registers to write down their Sacred Transactions, and therefore there were such also amongst the Jews. A very fine Consequence this! 'Tis credible however that Moses established such an Order of Men. But what Proofs have they to support this tottering Supposition? Why, Jo∣sephus and Eusebius tell us, that amongst the Hebrews it was not lawful for every one to write their History, but only for the Prophets who were inspired by God. All this may be very true; but then Josephus and Eusebius understand by these Prophets no other Persons but Moses, and those after him, who wrote the Books of the Old Te∣stament down to the Reign of Artaxerxes. We must pass the same Judgment of Theodoret, say they, and the other Fathers: Now this, in my Opinion, is to make 'em speak things they never thought of, and not to understand them a∣right. As for what they add farther concerning these Prophets, whom they have invested with an Authority to add or diminish from the Books of Scripture, this is still more improbable than the other. They barely tell us instead of proving it, that in the Books of Kings several other Memoirs are quoted, from whence they draw this Conclu∣sion, that all the Books of the Bible, which have come down to our Hands, are only Abridgments and Summaries of the ancient Acts. But does it follow from hence, that all the other Books of the Bible were used after this rate? Does it fol∣low, that they added to, or retrenched from them, after they were once made? Or lastly, that they were composed by these Prophets? They would have it proceed from this Reason, that there are so many Contradictions in the Books of the Holy Scripture. They say that this is the Reason of the Differences between the Chronicles and other Historical Treatises of the Bible, of that variety of false Conjectures that ruine the Autho∣rity of the Scriptures; and what is yet more ma∣terial, that 'tis not impossible to reconcile these seeming Contradictions. To this purpose they a∣mass together a great quantity of other Conje∣ctures of this Nature, very subtilely invented, but weak and ill-grounded, and yet upon the strength of these, they make the Authority of the Bible to depend, after they have endeavoured to under∣mine the solid Foundations which bear it up. Thus by pretending to advance Criticism, they forsake the Rules of true Judgment, and follow the Fantastick Chimaera's of their own Imagina∣tions. There is no weight in what they have in∣vented themselves, or what they have found rea∣dy invented to their Hands by some Rabbies; and yet at the same time they scruple and doubt of several things that are clearer and better established.

Although I did not name Mr. Simon in my first Edition, yet he very well perceived that this re∣proach was addressed to himself. The manner wherein he answered me, sufficiently shewed, that he was sensibly touched, however this his Car∣riage does not in the least justifie him. For in stead of demonstrating by solid Reasons, that the Reproaches I fasten'd upon him, were undeserved and ill-grounded, he has filled his Letter with no∣thing but Contumelies and scornful Reflections, which shews how heinously he resented the Li∣berty I took in examining his Hypothesis; and this all sensible Men observed as soon as ever his Letter appear'd in publick. But now to make it evident to the whole World, that I have Reason on my side, viz. that Mr. Simon is in the wrong for quarrelling with me upon this occasion, I shall only cast my Eyes on the Preface of his Book, where he sets down the Principles of his Work at length: The World will observe, (says he) that having considered nothing in this Essay but the Prophet of those who have a mind to know the Grounds of the Holy Scriptures, I have inserted abundance of Prin∣ciples, very usefull to resolve the most weighty Dif∣ficulties of the Bible, and at the same time to an∣swer those Objections which are usually made against these Holy Books. These Principles are reducible to three Heads: The first is, That there were al∣ways amongst the Hebrews a sort of Prophets, or Publick Registers, Divinely inspired, who made what Alterations or Additions they thought fit, in the Books of the Old Testament. The second is, That they heretofore wrote their Books upon

little Leaves, which they rowled one over ano∣ther round a small piece of Wood, without stich∣ing them together; whence it happen'd some∣times, that not taking sufficient care to preserve the order of these ancient Leaves or Volumes, the things themselves treated of, have sometimes been misplaced. The third is, That there is a great deal of Reason to believe, that those Per∣sons who joyned these old Memoirs together, to keep up the Body of those Canonical Books which are now remaining, made no scruple at all to cut off several Synonymous Terms, which were found in their Copies, and were perhaps in∣serted only for a fuller Illustration. These are the great and admirable Principles of Mr. Simon, his publick Registers, his Rolls, and Synonyma's. Here is, according to him, a way to resolve the most perplexed Difficulties of the Bible, and to defend its Authority against the Disciples of Spi∣nosa. Here is an infallible Expedient whereby we may confound the Socinians and Protestants, and invincibly prove the Inspiration of the Holy Books. And lastly, here is a never-failing Salve to silence all the Objections that can be urged against the Scripture. I am of Opinion that Mr. Simon will find very few People who will be in∣clined to subscribe to the Usefulness of these Prin∣ciples. But this is not the Business I design to examine, 'tis their Solidity I desire to see, upon which he values himself so exceedingly. For if it be made evident, that these Principles are only established upon weak frivolous Conjectures, then adieu to all those Advantages, say I, that may be drawn from thence. Let us therefore examine all the Proofs that Mr. Simon has brought together in his Critical History, and other Books.

The first of his Principles, is that about the Scribes or Registers that were divinely inspired. But he gives us no Proofs of this matter in his Preface; it seems that was not the proper place. In the first Chapter of his Critique, which is a sort of a second Preface, he contents himself with saying, That he gives the name of Prophets to the Authors of the Books of the Bible, and with repeating what he said before in his Preface con∣cerning the great advantage of these publick Scribes; as if it were enough for him barely to assert these things, without giving himself the trouble of proving them. But in the second Chapter he endeavours to make this whole mat∣ter evident, and therefore let us consider by what Reasons he offers to do it. In the first place he observes, that the Jewish State acknowledged no other Chief or Head, but God. From this Prin∣ciple he concludes, that God himself gave 'em Laws by the Ministry of Moses, and of the o∣ther Prophets who succeeded him. This Con∣clusion is undeniable, but it was not necessary to prove it by a Principle more obscure than the Conclusion that is drawn from thence. But we are not concerned to know, whether there were any of these Prophets amongst the Hebrews, for that is a constantly received Truth; but 'tis our business to know, In the first place, Whether there were in all Ages amongst the Jews those Scribes or Registers whom he talks of, who look∣ed after the Records and Histories of the Affairs of that Nation. Secondly, Whether they were divinely inspired. Thirdly, Whether they are the Authors of the Books of the Bible. 'Tis Mr. Si∣mon's business to prove these three Propositions, and not barely to tell us in general, that there were Prophets amongst the Jews. The second Remark made by Mr. Simon is this, That in all well-regulated Kingdoms, and especially in the Ea∣stern Nations, they had always certain Persons, who took care to see, that the most important Occurren∣ces of State were preserved in Writing. I thought indeed that Mr. Simon would have concluded from this Observation, that they had such Per∣sons likewise amongst the Jews. He disowns this Consequence, and therefore this can only pass for a Comparison, and so we must look for other Arguments to shew there were such publick Scribes amongst the Jews. It carries a great deal of Probability with it, continues he, that Moses, upon the first establishment of that State, set up this sort of Scribes, whom we may call Publick or Di∣vine ones, to distinguish 'em from particular Wri∣ters, who usually engage to write the History of their own Times from no Motives but those of In∣terest. However 'tis not certain that Moses ever did institute these Scribes, 'tis a mere Conjecture and nothing else. But how does Mr. Simon en∣deavour to prove it? He gives us two Reasons in a Parenthesis; the first is, Because Moses was bred up in the Aegyptian Court, where they had Priests, to whom they gave the name of Scribes or Registers, of Sacred Things. As if it were necessary, or in∣deed probable, that Moses would appoint a∣mongst the Children of Israel whatever he saw practised by the Aegyptians. He ought to have produced some Reason, or at least some Conje∣cture, to prove that Moses imitated them in this. But Mr. Simon omits to do it. The second Rea∣son, which he alledges to prove that Moses esta∣blished this sort of Scribes amongst the Jews, is▪ Because he was a perfect Law-giver; as if it was necessary for a perfect Law-giver to institute such a Custom. Was not Lycurgus a perfect Law-giver? And yet, by the acknowledgement of Mr. Simon himself, he did not appoint any of these publick Scribes in his Commonwealth. But for what purpose I wonder should Moses set 'em up amongst the Jews, when he himself had written their Laws and History. Besides, could Mr. Si∣mon undeniably prove, that there were these pub∣lick Scribes in the time of Moses, yet it would not follow from thence, that they were the Authors of the Pentateuch. And thus we see, that all Mr. Simon's admirable Conjectures to show, that the Books of the Pentateuch were wtitten by the Scribes divinely inspired, fall to the ground, with∣out doing what they were produced for.

Let us now see, if he is more fortunate in his Citations. The first is from Josephus, who tells us, That amongst the Jews it was not lawful for every one to write their Annals, but that this Pro∣vince was only reserved for the Prophets, who knew remote and future Things by Divine Inspira∣tion, and committed to Writing all the remarkable Passages of their time. Now to this I formerly answered, That Josephus by the Prophets under∣stands no more than Moses, and those that wrote the Books of the Old Testament after him. Mr. Simon answers, That the Reasons of Josephus are

〈…〉〈…〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 faithfully Translated are these; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 body 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to write History, th•…•… is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 our Histories. They are the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wh•• write, either about ••••∣•••••••••• T••i••gs 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••••••••n•••• a long time ago, and which they •••••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Divine Ins••••••••••ion, or about Things that happened i•• their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ti••••, and those they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as they ••••re 〈◊〉〈◊〉. We have not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Books that contradict 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ano∣ther, and ••••••y serve to perplex the Reader. We have only twenty two, which contain the History of all times, and to which we resign our Belief with a great deal of Justice. Of these Books there are five by Moses.... Fr•••• Moses down to Artaxerxes King of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lived after X••••xes, the Pro∣phets in thirteen Books wrote the History of their Times. The four following co••••••in Hy••••••s i•• Praise of God, and several Moral Pr••c••pts. In short, fr•••• Artaxe••x•••• down to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 own Times we have our History very well written, but these Books are not of the same Authority with the former, because there has not been a continued and regular Successi∣on of ••rophets. Nothing in the whole World can be more directly oppo••••te to Mr. Simon's Hypo∣thesis than this passage of J••sep••••••. Mr. Simon supposes, that in Moses's time there were publick Scribes, who cited the Memoi••s from whence they composed the ••••••tat••••••ch; and J••s••ph••s expresly tells us, that these five first Books were written by Moses. Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 supposes, that the follow∣ing Books are only Abridgments of those anci∣ent Memoirs, that were from time to time writ∣ten by the publick Scribes, and afterwards col∣lected together by others of the same Character; and J••sep••••s supposes, they were written in the same manner as we now find 'em, by the Pro∣phets that lived upon the spot when these things, which they have delivered, were transacted. Mr. Simon would needs have it, that in the Jewish Nation there were always publick Scribes divine∣ly inspired; and Josephus plainly tells us, that the Succession of Prophets failed after Artaxer∣xes. Now what can be more irreconcileable than all this? Besides, 'tis observable, that Josephus's Prophets are different from Mr. Simon's publick Scribes. They were not Men intrusted with the Registers, and appointed to write History: But Prophets, whom from time to time we find a∣mongst the Jews, who took care to transmit the Passages of their time to Posterity; and their Books are not at all different from those, which the Jews acknowledged for Canonical in the time of Josephus. From all which it necessarily fol∣lows, that this passage confirms my Hypothesis, and utterly destroys Mr. Simons: For we maintain with Josephus against Mr. Simon, That Moses is the Author of the Pentateuch, and that the other Authentick Books of the Old Testament were written by Men divinely inspired, or by Prophets who lived n••ar the times wherein those Occur∣rences happened which they delivered, though we do not ••••••••ainly know their Names: 'T•••• to these Books and not to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that we are to apply the Words of St. Gregory upon Job, which Mr. Simon manifestly ••••••verts and abuses in his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Chapter, Q•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seripserit v••ld•• superv•••••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Auctor Lib•••• Spirit•••• S••nct•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 credatur. For this Father speaks this only with relation to the Book of Job, wh••se Author is unknown to us.

The second Author, that Mr. Simon alledges in his Critical History to prove these S••ribes divinely inspired, is Eus••bius: Eusebius, says he, confir•••• this Opinion, when he takes notice, that amongst the Jews it was not allowed for all sorts of People to pass their Judgment upon those Men that were in∣spired by the Holy Spirit to write Holy Books. He cites in the Margin, Eusebius de praeparatione E∣vangelic••; that is to say, a great Book in Folio; I have diligently hunted after this passage there, but have not been so happy as to meet with it. But let the matter be how it will, I don't see what Assistance it brings to Mr. Symon's Hypo∣thesis; The Jews had Writers that were divinely inspired; Who questions it? As also, That it did not belong to all the World to judge who they w••re, that were thus divinely inspired; but this Province was reserved for those Persons, who had the same Inspiration themselves. Well then, suppose it were so, does it therefore follow that the Books of Moses were composed by the Kee∣pers of Registers? Does it follow that those who were appointed to write History, and that too out of the publick Memoirs, were divinely inspi∣red? Or lastly, That all the Books of Scripture which we now have, are but so many Abridge∣ments extracted out of these Memoirs. As for what remains, Mr. Simon could not have cited any Author more contrary to his own Hypothe∣sis, than Eusebius, and that even in this very Book De Praeparatione Evangelicâ. For one of the great Principles, which he there establishes in several places, is the Authority and Antiquity of the Books of Moses, which he always suppo∣ses to have been written by that Prophet in the same manner as we have 'em at present. The Truth of this Assertion he confirms by these three Propositions, which he lays down in the begin∣ning of the 14th Book. The first is, That Mo∣ses is ancienter than any Greek Author. The second, That he has written what he had learned of his Ancestors. The third, That the Jews have neither added nor diminished from the Writings which he left them. And now I'll leave the World to judge whether these Principles of Eu∣sebius agree with those of Mr. Simon.

The third Author cited by Mr. Simon is Theo∣doret. It must be confessed, that this Father owns, (as well as several other Authors have done) that the Books of Kings and Chronicles were composed from very ancient Memoirs. But this is not the point in Question. We confess, we are not assured of the Authors of those Books. We acknowledge they are a Collection drawn out of old Memoirs. But we demand of Mr. Si∣mon, whether it follows from hence, that the Pentateuch, and other Books of the Bible, are of the same Nature. This is a thing which Theodo∣ret wou'd beware of saying, because he owns Mo∣ses to be the Author of the Pentateuch. 'Tis

with this Assertion he begins his Pre•••••••• to the Books of Kings, from whence Mr. Simon has drawn these passages which he qu••••••s After ha∣ving explained the Books of Moses, &c. To these three Authors has Mr. Simon in his Letter to Mon∣sieur L' Abbe, added the Author of the Synopsis, attributed to St. Athanasius. This Author fol∣lows the Opinion of Josephus, and after having observed that the five first Books of the Bible do without dispute belong to Moses, he says, that all the following Books are not written by those whose Names they bear, but that they were composed by Prophets who lived from time to time. Lastly he observes, when he is speaking concerning the ••••r••∣••icles, that one finds several Historical Books of the Prophets quoted there. And what does all this make for Mr. Simon's Hypothesis? Have not we said the very same thing? Does not all the World agree as to this particular? Had Mr. Simon kept himself here, no Body would have fell upon him.

The last Author, whom Mr. Simon cites to ju∣stifie his Hypothesis, is the Author of the Chroni∣•••••• Alexandrinum. This Author in the place tran∣scribed by Mr. Simon, tells us, that there were some Prophets who wrote their own Prophesies themselves, as David the Book of Psalms, and Da∣niel his Prophecy; and that there were others who did not write themselves, but that they had Scribes in the Temple, who wrote down, as it were in a Journal, the Words of each Prophet...... That the Books of Kings were thus composed by parts, that under Saul's Reign they wrote whatever passed in his time, and so likewise in David's time, and the other Kings; That the Chronicles are but a Collection of Registers, and several Papers of their Kings; That Moses wrote the Pentateuch; That Joshuah is the Author of the Book which bears his Name; That the Book of Judges was written by the Scribes in the Temple from time to time, as well as that of Ruth; That Salomon composed the Proverbs, the Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. This Author's Hy∣pothesis is extreamly different from that of Mr. Si∣mon. 1. He supposeth for a certain truth, that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuth, and does not attribute his Works to the publick Scribes or Abbreviators. 2. He does not say, that these publick Scribes were inspired by God, or that they wrote the History of themselves. He supposes the Prophets dictated that to them as well as their Prophecies. 3. He believes that the Books of Kings and Judges were the very Origi∣nals from the Prophets, which were joyned to∣gether. Instead of which Mr. Simon believes, that these Books are Abridgments. I won't lose so much time as to answer the Rabbi's, and other Authors of that Stamp, whom Mr. Simon has mu∣stered up in his last Letter. 'Tis visible there's not one single Author he quotes that is of the same opinion with himself. For, In the first place, they all of 'em acknowledge, That the Books of the Pentateuch ought not to be attributed to Scribes, or to Prophets divinely Inspired, but to Moses himself. Secondly, they say, That the following Books were written by Persons divinely Inspired, to whom they gave the name of Pro∣phets, but they don't tell us, that these Prophets were Supervisors of the Registers, or publick Scribes. Thirdly, they acknowledge, That there were ancient Memoirs, or ancient Histories, often quoted in the Books of Kings, and the Chronicles. No body doubts this, I have frequently observed it, and have made a Catalogue of the Books that are quoted in the Old Testament. But it does not f••llow from hence, that all the Books of the Bi∣ble are Extracted from these Memoirs, and Com∣piled a long time after. Mr. Simon has given these publick Scribes authority to change, to enlarge, and abridge these Sacred Books as they see conve∣nient. To prove this, he quotes Don Isaac A∣barbinel, a Learned Spanish Jew, as if we were obliged to take all for Gospel that these Rabbi's have been pleased to deliver. He joyns Procopius and Theodoret to this Jew, as Men that have ob∣served, that the Books of Kings and Chronicles were drawn out of several other Historical Books. Not to displease Mr. Simon, he has mightily alter∣ed the Point, for this is not the Question under debate. We agree with him, that the Authors of the Books of Kings, and the Chronicles, com∣piled their Histories out of Memoirs and parti∣cular Historians whom they found, as Livy and Mez••ray made use of the ancient Historians to compose their Histories: But for all this, we dare not say, they have changed or diminished the an∣cient Histories, that always continued in the same condition they were in, nor that they had a Pri∣vilege to do this, much less that they have made any considerable Alterations or Additions to the Books of Moses. Mr. Simon at last brings in a very dangerous Maxim, though he covers it under a specious appearance of Usefulness: It would be dangerous, says he, to pretend to Correct one Book of Scripture by another, because they don't agree altogether themselves. 'Tis very truly said, that we ought not to Correct one Book of Scri∣pture by another: But it is not true, that two Books of the Scripture don't altogether agree with each other. There is not any real Contra∣diction between the Books of the Bible; if there are any apparent ones, the fault does not lie in the Authors, but in our want of understanding them. 'Tis a piece of extraordinary Rashness and Presumption to suppose with Mr. Simon, that there are real Contradictions in the Books of the Bible, that the Author of the Chronicles has re∣ported Matter of Fact otherwise than it is in o∣ther places, or that the Genealogies and Chrono∣logy of the Scriptures are faulty, and the like: I know, says Mr. Simon, that it is expresly forbid∣den in Deuteronomy to add or diminish a Tittle from the Word of God. Here then there is an ex∣press Text against Mr. Simon's Hypothesis. Now to answer this Passage, he ought to alledge some other place of Scripture, which restrains and li∣mits this Prohibition to private Persons, or gives Permission to the Prophets and publick Scribes to do the contrary. But Mr. Simon thinks it enough to quote the Author of the Book Cozri, who is of the same opinion, but by a peculiar Misfortune that attends him, we find, that a certain Com∣mentator towards the bottom of the Page, where this Book is quoted, observes, That the Author of the Book Cozri does not speak of the Scripture in that place, but only of the Explication of the Com∣mandments, which depended upon the Judges of the

Sanedrim▪ who had po••••r 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••xt••••d or limit the•• according to the circumstances of Ti•…•…, and •…•…r∣gent Occasions▪ What b••com•••• then of Mr. S•…•…'s Answer▪ It stood only upon the Authority of the Author of the Book C•…•…, and now we see, that this very Author will not be brought to say what he would have him▪ Af•…•… all, Mr. Simon quotes the Common Opinion of the Fathers, who believe, that the Collection of the Old Testament, such as it now is, was composed by •…•…ah, which confirms, says he, what I am now maintaining; for Ezrah could not correct and restore these Books, which, ac∣cording to them, had been •…•…pted during the time of the Captivity, but in the Quality and Character of a Prophet and publick Scribe, and therefore he is called a Scribe by the way of Excellence in the Bible. I would willingly know what necessity there was, that Ezrah should restore the Holy Scripture in quality of Publick Scribe, or Master of the Rolls. Is it not infinitely more probable to imagine he did it, because he was commanded to restore the Religion and Laws of the Jews in their ancient Purity, as being their Chief and High-Priest. Whenever he is called a Scribe in Scri∣pture▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not in Mr. Simon's sense, but because he was well skilled and knowing in the Law of the Lord. We need only give our selves the trouble to read this passage, Ez. 7. v. 6. Ezra went up from Babylon, and he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given▪ That is to say, he perfectly understood the Law, the Word Scribe being taken in the same sense in Jeremiah, ch. 8. v. 8. And it does not sig∣nifie any thing else in the New Testament, where this Name is given to all the Doctors of the Law.

The second Principle of Mr. Simon depends up∣on the changing of the Rolls or Volumes in which these Sacred Books are written. I said before, that this Conjecture is only pleasant because it is new, and that it was a Chimaera, that had nothing at all to do with the Argument in hand. Mr. Simon answers me immediately, That what I call a Chimaera, was a very ancient opinion, and likewise taken no∣tice of by the most ancient Criticks. It was there∣fore his business to look after his Proofs. But I have no Exceptions to make to the Antiquity of Rolls; (for 'tis very plain that they formerly wrote upon Leaves which they rolled together) but only to the ill use he makes of 'em. He ought to have shown by convincing Instances, that these Rolls frequently occasioned Transposi∣tions, and he ought likewise to have applied this Conjecture to some Examples in Scripture which had suffered by this disorder. But this I defy him to do after all his attempts, he dares not under∣take any thing of that nature, but contents him∣self to say in general terms, That it may be so. I said also, That this Conjecture had nothing to do with the Subject, because if we supposed, that some little confusion might accidentally happen in the rolling of these Leaves, yet the Abridgers might easily rectifie 'em and set 'em in order. To this Mr. Simon replies, that 'tis to no purpose to talk of the Abridgers, because these Leaves were disordered long after the Collection of the Abridgments. I did indeed believe Mr. Simon had spoken of the Leaves of the Originals or Memoirs, out of which, as he pretends, they made an Abridgment of the Bible, and I am still of opinion, that he is thus to be understood, where he says, p. 35. I much doubt whether we are to attribute to Moses and the publick Scribes, that lived in his times, the disor∣der and confusion which we find in several places of the Pentateuch: There is great probability for us to believe, that as they wrote their Books then upon little Rolls, or single Leaves, which they rolled one upon another, the order of these Leaves has been changed. Now it was very probable, that this then had a relation to Moses, and the publick Scribes: But since Mr. Simon is willing to have it under∣derstood of the Times that followed these Abridg∣ments, he ought to inform us, that the little Or∣der which we find, as he pretends, in the Penta∣teuch, proceeded from the changing of these Rolls. But this he can never be able to do, and I challenge him to apply this Conjecture to the Examples which he produces; as one may readily rectify a printed Sheet of Paper which was transposed in binding a Book. Hence it follows, that this second Principle of Mr. Simon is so very far from being well grounded, that 'tis indeed wholly useless. As for what concerns his third Principle, which is the Repetition of the Synonymous Terms, from whence he pretends to conclude, that the Books of the Bible are composed from several ancient Memoirs, 'tis a false and frivolous Conjecture; for there is much greater reason for a Man to believe, that these Repetitions came from one Author, who wrote these Things a•• Memoirs at first, than from an Epitomizer, who has weaved one conti∣nued History without making any repetition of the same Things, or the same Words: Besides, that these Repetitions which Mr. Simon produces as Examples, are not absolutely needless, but serve either to Illustrate what has been said, or else to Corroborate some Circumstance or other, or last∣ly, to give more Force and Efficacy to what is written. 'Tis no unusual thing to meet with Re∣petitions of that nature in most Authors, and prin∣cipally in those, that write the History of their own times with an air of Simplicity and Unaf∣fectedness.

Eleventh Objection. 'Tis pretended that the Re∣petitions, which we meet with in the Pentateuch, were not in all probability made by Moses, but ra∣ther by them, who made a Collection of the Holy Books, and have joyned together several Precepts or Explications of the same Words. There are abundance of these Repetitions which they pro∣duce. They say moreover, that there are many Repetitions of the same thing differently related, and this makes it appear, that this History is drawn from several different Memoirs. They add, That we cannot rationally attribute them to Moses, because of the little Order or Regularity we find them in. They produce upon this occasion a Con∣jecture that is pleasant enough, because new. There is reason to imagine, say they, that as they wrote their Books in those times upon Rolls, or separate Leaves, which they rolled one upon another, the order of the Leaves has been changed and inverted. And so they pretend, that the diversity of Style, which is to be found in the Books of the Pentateuch, is a satisfactory Proof, to shew that the same Wri∣ter was not the Author. Answer. All these Ob∣jections

are extremely weak and impertinent, and rather destroy, than contribute any thing to the Hypothesis they are produced to establish. For can any Man in the World believe, that an Au∣thor, who had abridged any History, would so often repeat the same things, that he would pre∣serve no order, and not write in the same style throughout. On the contrary, Don't all Abbre∣viators make it their business to make their Rela∣tions in as few Words as possible, regularly, and after an uniform manner? The contrary Faults more frequently belong to the first Authors of History, who naturally and simply recount all Affairs which they know. This sort of Repeti∣tion is very familiar and common among the An∣cients, and particularly amongst those, who wrote an History or Fable first; and they are rarely found in Historians, who compile their Works out of the Memoirs of other Men, the reason is, because the first write naturally, just as they speak, without Meditation and Study, and the others on the contrary, having all their Matter ready fitted to their hands, are only at the Expence of ran∣ging, and digesting it Methodically. The Repeti∣tions, which we find in the Pentateuch, are often necessary to explain the Particularities of those Things, which at first they were forced to relate in general; for this reason it is, that the particu∣lar Circumstances of the Creation of the World, which were set down in the first Chapter of Gene∣sis, were afterwards told over again, more parti∣cularly in the second. 'Twas the Genius and Cu∣stom of the Hebrews to repeat the same Words, as it was indeed the fashion of all the Ancients.

But we are not to believe, that there is so lit∣tle order, as they would make us believe, in the Pentateuch, and if there were less than there real∣ly is, that would be rather an Argument to show it belongs to Moses, who wrote without Art, Method, and Affectation, as those People gene∣rally do, who leave Memoirs behind them of those Passages, wherein themselves bore a share. The conjecture about the Rolls is an extravagant Whimsie, that makes nothing at all to the pur∣pose, for if there were any confusion of the Leaves, the Abbreviators might without any great diffi∣culty set them right in their true order. Lastly, what they pretend about the considerable diffe∣rence of style in the Pentateuch, is notoriously false: On the contrary, a Man may observe all along the Genius of the same Author; and if he sometimes does not happen to enlarge upon the Affairs, which he relates, 'tis because his Matter required shortness, or because he did not judge it convenient to use that liberty. Now we can∣not in justice call this a difference of Style, when all the rest is agreeable, and of a piece.

But let us leave Mr. Simon to answer his Ad∣versary, who pretends, as well as himself, that the Pentateuch does not belong to Moses, but to a Jewish Priest sent from Babylon to instruct the Christians. His Conjectures, which are easily an∣swered, are these:

In the first place, he says, That the 11th and 12th Verses of the second Chapter in Genes••s could not be written by Moses. The name of the first is Pison, that is it which compasseth the whole Land of Havelah, where there is Gold. And the Gold of that Land is good, there is Bdellium, and the Onyx Stone. These Remark, ssays Mr. Simon's Adversary, seem to proceed from an Author who had been in that Country, that is to say, in Chaldea, for Pison is an Arm of Euphrates, that discharges it self into the Persian Gulf. It is by no means probable, that Moses, who never went far from Aegypt, should be able to give so particular a relation of a Coun∣try so remote and distant, in a time when such Voyages were very rare, and attended with abun∣dance of Difficulties. But I would willingly un∣derstand what should hinder Moses from know∣ing, that this Country was watered with the Ri∣ver Pison, and how was it possible for him to give a description of the place, unless he had given the most publick and commonly known Marks. We see plainly, that some Countries, though never so remote, are yet known well enough for those excellent and precious Commodities that are found there, which are to be met with no where else, and which are transported from thence to o∣ther places. 'Tis not necessary for a Man, to go to Potosi, to be informed, that the Gold of that Country is very fine, and in great plenty; or to make a Voyage to the Indies, to know that Pearls and precious Stones, are found there; nor is there any more strength in the second Reason▪ which supposeth, that the exactness wherewith this Author describes the erecting of the Cities of Mesopotamia and Assyria, v. 18. of the 10th Chap∣ter of Genesis, is a clear indication, that the Wri∣ter thereof had been in that Country. For is it necessary that an Historian should have been in all the places he mentions? On the other hand, Was there ever any Historian in the World that has seen all the Countries which he gives an ac∣count of?

These are this Author's private Guesses: We have already answered those which have been started by Hobbs, Spinosa, and Mr. Simon, as well as himself, but don't think it worth the while to throw away any time in refuting those extrava∣gant Whimsies he makes so much noise about, to prove that the Pentateuch was written by a Sa∣maritan Priest. They are so weak and pitiful that they deserve no body's Consideration, and indeed if such Reasonings were to be allowed, I don't know one single Book in the World which might not upon as good Grounds be taken away from the true Author, and bestowed upon another. From hence we may see, of what ill consequence it is to give ones Imagination too large a Scope, and mistake bare Conjectures for eternal Truths.

[h] They would only prove, that the same thing has happened to the Books of Moses, which has almost happened to all the ancient Authors, viz, That some few Words, Names, and Terms, have been added or altered to render the Narrative more intelligible.] If one examines all these Objections that I have already answered, he will be convinced they prove no more, and that one might have answered al∣most all of them by this very Remark. Mr. Si∣mon, who cannot contradict me in this Point, is mighty desirous to set upon me another way, by objecting, that in my Preface, and other places of my Book, I have laid down Rules which seem to prove from these Additions, that the Penta∣teuch is a supposititious Work: For it seems I had

affirmed in the first part of my Preface, That im∣postors for the most part relate Matters of Fact that happened after the Death of those whom they speak of, and they give an Account of Cities and People that were not known in the time of those Authors whose Names they assume. From whence Mr. Si∣mon draws this Consequence, that since I own there are several such Additions in the Pentateuch, a Disciple of Spinosa may thence conclude, that according to my Rule 'tis a supposititious Work. To this I answer, that this Objection of Mr. Si∣mon shews, that he has not so great a share of good Sense, and closeness of Arguing, as he has of Rabbinical Learning. For if he had only consi∣dered the General Remark which I made in my Preface about the Rules of Criticism there laid together, he could not have been guilty of so ma∣nifest a Solecism as this. I desire him to mind these Words a little: A Man may say, that all these Rules which I have here laid down, are con∣vincing and probable in different degrees, but that the Sovereign and Principal Rule is the Judgment of Equity and Prudence, which instructs us to ballance the Reasons of this and t'oher side, in distinctly con∣sidering the Conjectures that are made of both sides. Now this is the General Rule of Rational Criti∣cism, and we abuse all the rest if we don't chiefly make use of this. Let us now apply it to the pre∣sent Question. There are in the Pentateuch some Terms, and Names of Cities, and other Passages that could not come from Moses; must we there∣fore hastily conclude that it was not written by Mo∣ses, because 'tis a certain sign that a Book is spuri∣ous, when one finds such Occurrences in it, as have happen'd after the Death of the Author to whom it is attributed, and because we there meet with some Names of Cities and People that were not known in his time? Or on the other hand, Does it follow, because the Pentateuch was writ by Mo∣ses, notwithstanding some Additions which are there to be found, does it I say thence follow, that the above-mentioned Rule is false? These two Consequences are very indiscreetly drawn, but the Rule is still good, and the Books of the Penta∣teuch may yet be written by Moses. The Rule is good, but we ought to make a good use of it. When there are no certain Proofs of the Antiqui∣ty of a Book, and besides there are other Conje∣ctures to incline us to doubt of it, we may in pur∣suance to this Rule, conclude it spurious. But when it is past Dispute that such a Book is writ∣ten by such an Author, and there is an infinite number of evident Arguments to demonstrate the truth of it; then we are necessarily to conclude, that these Words, and Terms, and Names, were afterwards added. After all, where there are Rea∣sons on one side, as well as on the other, we ought carefully to ballance them, to weigh one against the other, and at last to determine the matter on that side, where the greatest appearance of pro∣bability lies. These are the true Rules of Criticism, which it seems Mr. Simon is ignorant of, or at least does not rightly examine, otherwise he could ne∣ver have forgot himself so far, as to accuse me wrongfully for giving favourable Rules to the Disciples of Spinosa. The fault is by no means to be imputed to these Rules, which almost every Critick has given before me, but 'tis his way of Arguing, and drawing of Inferences that has been favourable to the Spinosists. His Conjectures, and Objections, and in short his Hypothesis, has ser∣ved to confirm those Persons in their Errors, be∣sides that several places of his Book give the grea∣test Blow imaginable to the Authority of the Ho∣ly Scripture; When he asks me, What answer I will return to a Spinosist, who to prove that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, shall use my own Reasons to show that the Liturgy of St. James, as 'tis commonly received by the Oriental Nations, was not made by him? I will answer him, that there are not the same Reasons to induce a Man to believe that St. James was the Author of that Liturgy, which goes under his Name, as that the Books of Moses were written by him: That this was never affirmed in any of the Epistles of the Apostles, that the Ancients never speak of it, that this Liturgy does not agree with the Discipline that was in use in St. James's time. Whereas the Scripture informs me that Moses was Author of the Pentateuch, and Jesus Christ and his Apostles have assured me of the truth of it, and all the an∣cient Writers have testified so much, besides the Universal Agreement of all People in this matter. 'Tis therefore a manifest Injustice and Calumny in Mr. Simon to accuse me for designing to destroy the Books of Moses, under a pretence of defending them against the Spinosists.

Nor does Mr. Simon reason better in applying what I have said with regard to the Book of Jo∣shuah, to the Books of the Pentateuch; 'tis but comparing the Arguments I brought to prove that the Books of the Pentateuch belonged to Moses, with those that are commonly produced to prove that the Book of Joshuah was written by Joshuah, and any Man will soon perceive the mighty diffe∣rence between one and the other, and that the Reasons that are alledged in favour of Moses, are infinitely stronger than those that are urged to prove that Joshuah composed the Book that bears his Name. No Man ever yet doubted that the Pen∣tateuch was written by Moses, but 'tis not the same case with the Book of Joshuah. Mr. Simon supposeth there is as much evidence for one, as the other; in order to prove this, he imagines that all those formal places of Scripture that are produced to shew that Moses was Author of the Pentateuch, reduce themselves to this Head, viz. That Moses wrote the Law; and he pretends there is the same reason to affirm, that Joshuah added the Book of his History to the Books of the Law. But if any one will give himself the trouble to consider the passages that are to be found in the Notes (b) and (c), he will be perswaded that they are very posi∣tive as well as numerous, and don't lie in so nar∣row a compass as those which are brought in be∣half of Joshuah: Besides, 'tis but reading the 24th Chapter of the Book of Joshuah, where we find this last passage, and we shall see that it may be very well understood of the Moral and Ceremonial Precepts that are mentioned in that place. From hence it evidently appears, that there's a vast diffe∣rence between the Reasons that prove Moses to be the Author of the Pentateuch, and those that seem to intimate that Joshuah composed the Book which contains this History; and that a Man without in∣curring the guilt of rashness, may doubt whether

he is the Author of that Book; but that he can∣not doubt whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch, without being guilty of that crime to the highest degree. At the same time I will not absolutely deny that Joshuah was Author of the Book that carries his Name; I have only observed, that it is not absolutely certain, and 'tis an easie matter to take notice, that I rather incline to that party which assigns it to Joshuah.

(i) We don't certainly know when these Books were written by Moses.] Some say that Genesis was written by Moses, after the departure out of Egypt; so Pererius and Tena. 'Tis most proba∣ble, that all of them were written after the depar∣ture out of Egypt, and particularly that Genesis was composed after the Promulgation of the Law. This is the Opinion of Eusebius and the Ancients, and indeed we find in Genesis several Allusions to the Law; as for example, in Chap. 2. there is mention made of the Law of the Sab∣bath; and in the 7th and 8th Chapters of clean and unclean Beasts: Which are sufficient Intima∣tions that Moses wrote those things, when his Thoughts were full of the Law then newly made. Deuteronomy is the last, for besides that it is a Re∣petition of what we find in the Law, it plainly tells us, that Moses spoke those things to the People of Israel when they were ready to go o∣ver Jordan. To this we may add, that he there relates whatever happen'd towards the end of his Life; and lastly, that the Account of his Death is inserted there, as being his last Work.

(k) Though 'tis commonly believed that this Book was written by Joshuah.] Most of the Modern Writers are of this Opinion, as was also Isidore in the 6th Book of his Origines, Junilius, and Do∣rotheus, Vatablus, Abulensis, Driedo, and Bellar∣mine say the same, as do likewise the Talmudists Babatra, c. 1. This Opinion is chiefly supported by these Words in the last Chapter, Vers. the 26th, where it is said, that Joshuah wrote all these things in the Book of the Law of God. However, this passage may have a relation only to what is writ∣ten in this Chapter, or else perhaps Joshuah might have written another Book, of which this was an Abridgment. 'Tis said in Ecclesiasticus, Chap. 46. that Joshuah was the Successor of Moses in Prophe∣cies; But this does not prove that he wrote any thing. Theodoret assures us, that the Book of Joshuah is nothing else but an Extract out of the Book of Jasher, which is mentioned in the 10th Chapter, Vers. the 13th.

The Reasons that are brought to prove that this Book was not written by Joshuah, are gene∣rally these. In the first place, say they, it is ob∣served there in the 10th Chapter, Vers. 13. that the Book of Jashar, where the Wars of Joshuah were written, is quoted, therefore the Book of Joshuah is later. 2. We meet there this fashion of speaking, Usque in praesentem diem, unto this day, frequently repeated: As for instance, when it's said in the 4th Chap. Vers. 9. That the twelve Stones which Joshuah took out of the midst of Jordan, continue there unto this day. And in the 5th Chap. Vers. 9. The name of the place is called Gilgal, unto this day. 3. The taking of the City of Lachish is related Chap. 10. Vers. 35. tho' it happen'd not till after the Death of Joshu∣ah, as we may see, Judges, Chap. 18. Vers. 29. So likewise, Chap. 11. Vers. 14. and the follow∣ing, there is an account of Caleb and his Daugh∣ter Achsah, which passage did not fall out till after the Death of Joshuah, as it is written in the first Chapter of the Book of Judges. In the same Chapter, Vers. 28. there is mention made of the Land of Cabul, which received this Name from Hiram King of Tyre, as we may find it in the 9th Chapter of the first Book of Kings. Lastly, in the 9th Chapter, Vers. 23. and the last, it is said, That Joshuah made the Gibeonites Drawers of Waters and Hewers of Wood in the House of his God, which is probably to be understood of the Temple, that was not built long after the death of Joshuah. These Arguments are not wholly unanswerable. First, We don't know what man∣ner of Book the Book of Jasher was; 'tis not said that all the Wars of Joshuah were set down there, but only the relation of the Sun's standing still. Some think that Genesis is there called the Book of Jasher, where, as they pretend, this memorable Event was foretold. Others believe 'tis the Pen∣tateuch; Grotius says it was a Song composed up∣on that occasion. Huetius supposes that it is a Book of Morality. Lastly, others imagine it to have been a Book of Annals. If this last Opini∣on were the only true one, yet it by no means follows, that Joshuah was not Author of that Book where these Annals are quoted. Secondly, Suppossing that Joshuah wrote this Book towards the end of his Life, as is most reasonable to think he did, when he had occasion to speak of those things that happen'd at the beginning of his Mi∣nistry, he might very well make use of that Ex∣pression, Usque in praesentem diem, unto this day, even as St. Matthew himself, who wrote a little after the Death of our Blessed Saviour, tells us, that the Field Aceldama was called The Field of Blood unto this day. These, and the following Objections, may be answered, by saying, that these things have been added since, and particu∣larly the taking of the City of Lachish by the Danites: Or at least we may say that the City of Lachish, mentioned in Joshuah, is a different place from Laish in the Book of Judges. The second Objection may be answered by saying, That whatever is said concerning Othoniel and Achsa in the Book of Judges, is only a Recapi∣tulation of what happened in the time of Joshu∣ah. The Land of Cabul, mentioned in Joshuah, is different from that in the Book of Kings: Jo∣sephus has distinguished them; one is a Country, the other a Village. The House of God, menti∣oned in the Ninth Chapter, may be understood well enough of the Tabernacle and Ark, which was in the time of Joshuah.

(l) Be it as it will, the Book of Judges is anci∣ent.] To prove that this Book was not compo∣sed till after the Captivity, they commonly in∣stance in these words in Chap. 18. Vers. 30, 31. Untill the day of the Captivity of the Land; and in these, In those days there was no King in Israel. Words, say they, which demonstrate that this Book was written after the Captivity, and in the time when they had Kings in Israel. But the Captivity spoken of in this place, is not that of Babylon, but the Captivity that happened in

the time of Heli, when the Ark was taken by the Phllistines, and the Idol of Micah was de∣stroyed, as it is observed in this place of the Book of Judges. And as for these words, In those days there was no King in Israel, they don't necessarily suppose that there were any when this Author lived, and perhaps they were added by Ezrah.

(m) Which has made Men think, that the Books of Samuel were written by that Prophet.] This Opinion is not certain, because Chap. 9. Vers. 9. it is said, That he that is now called a Prophet, was before-time called a Seer, which Samuel could not say. In the fifth Chapter, Verse the fifth, the Author of this Book, relating the History of the taking of the Ark, tells us, that the Priests of Dagon did not tread upon the Threshold of Dagon unto this day. But this might well e∣nough be said by Samuel, because that happened when he was young, and he wrote not this Book till towards the end of his Life.

(n) Ezrah speaks there in the first Person.] He speaks of himself in the first Person, Ezrah, Chap. 7. Vers. 27, and 28. God hath extended his Mercy towards me before the King, and I, &c. And Chap. 9. Vers. 5. I fell upon my Knees, and spread out my Hands.

(o) The Conjecture of Huetius is not so strong as to make us quit the common Opinion.] He says, that the Author of the six first Chapters was at Jerusalem in the time of Darius, as it appears by these words in the fifth Chapter, ad quod respon∣dimus eis qu•• essent nomina. Now Ezrah came not to that City till after Darius's Reign under that of Artaxerxes, as is easily proved by the be∣ginning of the seventh Chapter. But 'tis no hard matter to refute this Conjecture, by observing that when Ezrah said, Respondimus eis, he only spoke in the Name of the Jews; and 'tis an usual thing with the Historians of any Nation to cry, We did such or such a thing, although the Histo∣rian had no share in the doing it.

(p) The second Book is constantly attributed to Ne∣hemiah.] He begins thus, The Words of Nehemiah; and after the same manner, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Timaeus, &c. begin their Works, not to men∣tion the Prophets. The Author of Ecclesiasticus speaks of the Actions of Nehemiah, Chap. 40. and the Author of the second Book of the Maccabees commends his Writings.

(q) Tis commonly believed, that Tobit and To∣bias wrote their own History.] This Opinion is principally founded upon the Angels command∣ing them in the 12th Chapter, Vers. 20. Narra∣te omnia mirabilia ejus. In the Greek Interpreter it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Write all his wonderful Works. Secondly, because in the Greek and He∣brew Editions they speak of themselves in the first Person.

(r) The time wherein the History of Judith hap∣pen'd is no less uncertain.] Some say this History happened before the Captivity, and prove it, first, because it is said in this Book, that it happen'd a little after the City of Ecbatana was built by Ar∣phaxad King of the Medes. Now that City, ac∣cording to Eusebius and Herodotus, was built by Dejoces, who lived a long time before the Capti∣vity. Secondly, King Nebuchadnezzar, who sent Holofernes into Jud••a, reigned in Ninive, which City was destroyed before the Captivity of Ba∣bylon. Thirdly, This Nebuchadnezzar, they tell us, is Saosd••thinus, Grandson of Sennacherib, and Son of Assaradon King of the Babylonians, who gave the Name of Nebuchadnezzar to their King. Fourthly, They say that Eliachim, or Joachim, was High-Priest under Manasses, as we may see in the 22d Chapter of Isaiah. Those who are of the contrary Opinion, return the following Answers to these Conjectures. To the first they reply, That Ecbatana was several times rebuilt. To the second, That Ninive was restored to its ancient Splendor by the Kings of Persia. To the third, That the Name of Nebuchadnezzar was common to the Kings of Babylon and Assyria. To the fourth, That Eliachim, of whom menti∣on is made in Isaiah, and in the second Book of Kings, Chap. 18. was not High-Priest. The Rea∣sons which they alledge for this Opinion are as follows: First, That this History happen'd at a time when there were no Kings at Jerusalem, and the High-Priests had the whole Authority in their Hands: Now this was not before the Captivity. Secondly, We read that there was one Eliachim; or Joachim, High-Priest after the Captivity. Thirdly, Achior, Prince of the Edo∣mites, being ask'd by Holofernes, Chap. 5. Vers. 3. Who the People of Israel were? He tells him, That they were lately carried away Captives in∣to a strange Land, but now possessed the City Jerusalem. Et plurimi eorum captivi abducti sunt in terram non suam, nuper autem reversi ad Domi∣num Deum suum, ex dispersione quâ dispersi erant adunati sunt, & ascenderunt Montana haec omnia, & iterum possident Jerusalem. And in the Greek it is added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Et Templum Dei eorum factum est in so∣lum. Words that shew, that this passage ought to be understood of the Captivity, and Destru∣ction of the Temple. Lastly, They add, that it is said in the 16th Chapter, that Judith, who lived an Hundred and five Years, saw no more War in Israel; and in the 8th Chapter, that when she went to find out Holofernes, she was young and beautiful. Hence they say it evident∣ly follows, that this History did not happen du∣ring the Reign of Manasses, because from the War which Pharaoh Necho made in the time of King Josiah, it was but Forty five or Forty six Years to the Captivity, so that by this account she must have been Sixty four Years old, when she went to meet Holofernes, which is by no means probable. These Reasons, I confess, are not unanswerable; but however, this Opinion seems to me to be most agreeable to Truth. The greatest part of the Protestant Criticks, as Luther, Chytraeus, Beroaldus, Scaliger, and Groti∣us, believe that this History is a Fiction, or Al∣legory, which Grotius has very hadsomely ex∣plained; but this is a rash Opinion, and ought not to be followed.

(s) The time and Author of the History of Hester are still uncertain.] Scaliger assures us that it happened under Xerxes. First he says, that the Name of Assueras, in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, resembles that of Xerxes: That Xerxes's Queen, whose Name is Amestris according to Herodotus, is the same with Hester: That the Feast whereof

mention is made in this Book, is that which is related by the same Historian, which Xerxes made before his Expedition against Greece. This Opinion is easily confuted, because from hence it would follow, that Hester was very old when she was married to Xerxes, and that her Uncle Mor∣decai was an Hundred and sixty Years old; for being one of those who were carried away Cap∣tives into Babylon in the time of King Jeconiah, when he was Ten Years old, if we thereto add the Seventy Years of Captivity, and the Years of the Kings of Persia after Cyrus, it will by the least Computation make up an Hundred and fifty Years. Secondly, Amestris was married to Xerxes a long time before his Expedition into Greece, as it appears by the joynt Testimonies of Herodotus and Ctesias. The Father of Amestris was Onophes a Persian, and no Jew. In short, that Queen was ill-natured and cruel. The Opi∣nion of those, who place this History under Ar∣taxerxes, is confuted by the same reason that is urged against the former; for 'tis precisely said in the second Chapter, Vers. 6. that Mordecai was of the Number of those, who were carried away by the King of Babylon along with Jeconiah. The third Opinion of those, who believe it was Cyaxares, is no less improbable. For first of all, the King who is mentioned in that Book, is called King of the Persians, and not of the Medes. Se∣condly, It is said that he Ruled from India to Ae∣thiopia; now the Medes were never so powerful. Thirdly, Ahasuerus commonly resided in the Ci∣ty of Susa, which, as Solinus, Diodorus, and Plu∣tarch testifie, was the place of residence of the Kings of Persia, and not of the Median Kings. Lastly, It could not happen under Cyaxares the Father of Astyages, as the Authors of this Opini∣on are agreed. As for Cyaxares, who is supposed to be the Son of Astyages, he is altogether un∣known to Herodotus, and other ancient Histori∣ans. None mention him but Xenophon, and all the World knows he is no exact Historian in his Cyropaedia. So that after all, the Opinion of those who believe that Ahasuerus was the same with Darius the Son of Histaspes, as it is by far the most probable, so it carries no difficulty with it. The first Reason alledged against the other Opinions, makes it evident that it could not be any of the Persian Kings after Darius; and as for what is said of him in this Book, that he Ruled from India to Aethiopia, it excludes all the Kings before Cambyses, and at the same time ex∣cludes Cambyses himself, who never conquered Egypt, and consequently belongs to none but Darius. It is said there, that Ahasuerus resided in the City of Susa, which agrees very well with Darius the Son of Histaspes, because, as Aelian has observed, that King built himself a Palace in that City; and besides Herodotus▪ adds, that he kept his Treasure there. The same Historian tells us, that he passionately loved one of his Wives, whom he calls Artissone▪ and that he put a Dia∣dem upon her Head. This passage suits mightily with the History of Hester, and the Name too bears some Conformity, for Hester is likewise cal∣led Hadassa. King Ahasuerus made all the Isles of the Sea Tributary to him. Now according to Thucydides, Darius the Son of Histaspes conquer∣ed them, as it is also observed by Plato in his M••nexenus, and after him none of the Persian Kings brought them under their Command. They Object, That Ahasuerus was descended of the Persian Kings, as it appears in the 16th Chap∣ter, whereas Darius was the Son of Histaspes, who was no King. But Herodotus assures us, that he was of the Royal Family. They likewise tell us, that it is written in the same Chapter that Haman would have translated the Empire to the Macedonians. Now, say they, the Macedo∣nians were not known till a long while after the time of Darius. Some People say, that Haman was no Macedonian, and that in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we ought to read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because he was of the Race of Agag, but this Conjecture is not solid. Answer, The History of Hester could not happen after this King, as we have already shewn, and the contrary Opinion is very weak. It was Natural for Haman, who was a Macedo∣nian, to endeavour to Translate the Empire to his own Nation, which was very Famous and Powerful at this time, as Justin has informed us. Lastly, they say, That Ahasuerus is also called Artaxerxes in the 16th Chapter; Now there were but three Kings of that Name, viz. one Sirnamed Longimanus, another Mnemon, and the last Ochus. Ahasuerus therefore was one of these three. Answer, Artaxerxes is a Name that might perhaps be given to all the Kings of Per∣sia, as Caesar to all the Roman Emperors.

(t) The greatest part make Mordecai the Au∣thor of it.] It seems that Mordecai was the Au∣thor of this Book, by chap. 9. vers. 20. and 23. and by chap. 12. vers. 4. where it is said, That he wrote down all that happened. In the Sep∣tuagint, chap. 9. Hester is joined to Mordecai, which made Serrarius, and some others, believe, that Hester and Mordecai composed it together. Those that pretend it was done by the Syna∣gogue, draw their Conjecture from hence, be∣cause the Original and Ceremonies of the Feast of the Jews, called Purim, are there largely de∣scribed, upon which occasion the Book seems to have been written.

(u) The Author of the Book, that recounts the History of Job, is no less uncertain.] Those that attribute it to Job ground their Opinion chiefly upon this, that he twice wishes in the 19th and 31st Chapters, that his Words were written down: But 'tis easie to observe, that he does not here speak of an ordinary Book, and that 'tis only a Figure, to shew how well he was satisfied of the Truth of them. Quis mihi tribuat ut scribantur Sermones mei: Quis mi••i det ut exarentur in libro Stylo ferreo, & plumbi lami∣nâ, vel certè sculpantur in silice? those that make Moses the Translator of it, as particularly the Author of one of the Commentaries upon Job, commonly ascribed to Origen, does, say, That he Translated it out of the Arabick or Syriack. The Talmudists and Rabbins make Moses the Au∣thor of it; and this is likewise the Opinion of the Author of the second Commentary upon Job, at∣tributed to Origen, of Methodius in Photius, of Po∣lychronius, of Julianus Halicarnasse••s in the Cate∣na, and of Nicetas upon Job. St. Jerome also seems to be of the same Judgment. The only

Reason they alledge to support this Opinion, is the resemblance of the Style, but for my part, I profess 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cannot find it out. The Style of the Book of Job is Figurative, Poetical, Obscure, and full of Sentences. One finds there an infinite number of Arabick or Syriack Terms, and 'tis extreamly different from the Style of the Penta∣teuch. Origen rejects this Opinion, Tom. 5. in Johannem, where he formally denies that Moses wrote any other Books besides the Pentateuch. St. Gregory, who attributes it to Salomon, brings nothing to prove this conjecture of his. Those that ascribe it to Jeremiah, justifie themselves by the Conformity of the Style, and the Syriack Words that occur so frequently there. Codurcus makes an Edomitish Prophet Author of it, but upon very frivolous idle Surmises. Some attri∣bute it to the Captive Jews in Babylon, without any Foundation, so that we can say nothing of the Author of this Book, but that he is altogether unknown.

(x) Who say that the History of Job is wholly feigned.] This is the Opinion of the Talmu∣dists, of Maimonides, and several Rabbins; but Ezekiel, ch. 14. v. 14. Tobit, ch. 2. v. 12. and St. James in his Epistle, speaks of him as a Man that really was. The proper Names of Job, of his Friends, of his Country, of the Number of his Children, serve to shew that it is a true History. St. Cyprian in his Treatise of Patience, St. Jerome in his Ep. 103, St. Basil, Homily the 4th, St. Austin in his Sermon 103, and all the Fathers, speak of him after this manner. 'Tis alledged a∣gainst this Opinion, that the proper Names of this Book have Mystick Significations; That Job signifies a Man in Grief; Uz, Counsel; Zophar, one that is Watchful; Eliphaz, the Law of God; Elihu, God himself. To this it is answered, That most Hebrew Names have such sort of Significa∣tions. All the other Objections only prove, That this History is delivered Poetically. This is re∣ally true in this History, that there was a cer∣tain great Person named Job, who was reduced to the extremity of Misery, by the loss of his Goods, and his Children, heighten'd by a very severe fit of Sickness; that he supported himself under all these Afflictions with incredible Pati∣ence; and at last was restored to a prosperous Condition. Upon the Occasion of this remark∣able Event, some one or other composed the Book of Job, the Discourses of his Friends, the Answers of Job, &c.

(yz) Some Persons make Job to have descended from Nahor the Brother of Abraham.) This is the Opinion of Bellarmine, who makes him the Grandson of Nahor, and older than Moses. He concludes, that 'tis probable he lived long, and that he lived not in Moses's timē, but he produ∣ces no Authorities to back this Opinion. A∣mongst the Grand-Children of Esau there is one called Jobab, which Name is easily formed into that of Job. Hence it is, that some People be∣lieve he was one of the Descendants of Esau, and an Edomite. This is particularly observed in the Greek Addition, which is without que∣stion very ancient, since Theodotion has ac∣knowledged it. Grotius believes, that in chap. 26. vers. 12. there is mention made of the Drowning of the Aegyptians in the Red Sea, but that is not certain. Castellio assures us, that in chap. 28. vers. 28. there is a passage taken out of Deut. chap. 4. vers. 56. but these two passages are different. The first is, Ecce timor Domini ipsa est Sapientia: The Second is, Haec est enim vera Sapientia & Intellectus. Grotius adds, That this Book was written after David and Salomon, but before Ezekiel, pretending, that as it is quoted by that Prophet, so there are several passages in it drawn out of the Psalms, and the Books of Salomon; but this is not evident, and it should rather seem, that David and Salomon borrowed some of their Thoughts out of Job, although it is not necessary either to say one or the other.

(aa) 'Tis certain, as St. Jerome has observed, that all the Psalms were not written by David.] St. Jerome, Epist. ad Cypr. Scimus errare eos qui Psalmos omnes David arbitrantur, & non eorum, quorum nominibus Inscripti sunt. Epist. ad Sophro∣nium. Psalmos eorum testamur Autorum, qui po∣nuntur i•• titulis; scilicet Asaph, Idithum, filiorum Chore, Emon Esraitae, Mosis, Salomonis, & reli∣quorum quos Esdras uno volumine comprehendit. This is also the Opinion of Origen, of St. Hilary, and the Author of the Abridgment attributed to St. Athanasius. St. Augustine in his Exposition of the second Psalm seems to be of that opinion: But in his Book of Heresies, Heresie the 26th, he takes the other opinion to be the more proba∣ble of the two. Theodoret also is doubtfull in the matter, as he testifies in his Preface upon the Psalms. Some others of the Fathers seem to have been persuaded, that they were all composed by David, as St. Chrysostome, Euthymius, Cassiodorus, and particularly Philastrius, who in Heresie the 126th reckons all those for Hereticks that doubt the truth of it. Nevertheless it is very certain, that they were not all written by David, for in the first place, there are some of them that bear other names; and secondly, some passages are to be found there, which happened after David's death, as in Psalm the 137th, where mention is made of the Captivity of the Jews in Babylon. One may observe the same thing in Psalm the 64th and 124th.

(bb) It is difficult to name the Authors of them.] St. Jerome pretends, that these Psalms belong to those whose names they carry; but this is not certain. 'Tis * 1.1 believed, that the fifty next imme∣diately after that that carries for it's Title the return of Haggai and Zechariah, were written by those Prophets. The Author of the Abridgment, commonly attributed to St. Athana∣sius, believes, that all the Psalms entituled to David, ipsi David, are nevertheless done by some other hand. Our Blessed Saviour cites the hun∣dred and tenth Dixit Dominus, which is found to have that Title, under the name of David, Matt. 22. v. 42. The hundred and thirty seventh Psalm carries the name of David and Jeremiah, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which makes it apparently thus to be understood. A Psalm of Jeremiah composed in imitation of David. The 64th Psalm, in the Vulgar Translation, bears the name of Isaac and of Ezekiel; the 70th that of the Sons of Jona∣dab,

and the chief Captives. The Jews make Sa∣lomon the Author of the 92d, and of several o∣thers. Origen says, that the 90th was composed by Moses, whose name it bears; and the Jews tells us, he made it upon the occasion of a Sedition that happened amongst the Children of Israel, up∣on the return of those that were sent to discover the Land of Promise. St. Jerome is of the same opinion. The ten following Psalms are also attri∣buted to Moses, not only by the Jews, but even by St. Hilary and Jerome. This cannot possibly hold true of the 99th, where mention is made of Samuel. Some of the Rabbies attribute the 92d to Adam, as the Talmudists do some to several of the ancient Patriarchs. There is a Greek Psalm, which is not of the number of the 150 attributed to David but written by some Hellenist who has borrowed it out of David, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.

(cc) They have been cited as Books inspired by God both in the Old and New Testament.] The 105th, the 96th, and the 136th Psalms are to be found in the 16th Chapter of the First Book of Chroni∣cles, and in the 7th of the Second Book it is said, that the Priests did sing the Psalms which David had composed for the Lord, singing, For his mercy endureth for ever. This is the 136th Psalm, which is yet to be found quoted in Chapters 5, and 20, of the same Book, in the 3d of Ezrah, in the 13th of Judith, in the 33d of Jeremiah, and the 3d of Daniel, [according to their Computation, who esteem the Song of the Three Children to be part of the Canonical Scripture.] In Ecclesiasticus, ch. 47. v. 9. it is said, that David praised God with all his heart, and set Singers before the Altar, In quorum sono dulces fecit modos. I have not leisure to speak of those many passages in the Prophets which allude to several places in the Psalms. In the Second of Maccabees, ch. 2. v. 13. there is men∣tion made of the Psalms of David; St. Matthew, ch. 13. v. 35. and 27. v. 35. recites the Prophecies about our Blessed Saviour, contained in the Psalms. Jesus Christ himself cites the Psalm Dixit Domi∣nus, &c. under the name of David; and in St. Luke, ch. 24. it is said, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning him: The Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles, are full of Citations out of the Psalms.

(dd) Grotius has pretended upon slight conje∣ctures it was composed by Zorobabel.] This Opini∣on is not supported by any solid Reason. He says, that the Shepherd mentioned towards the end of the last Chapter is Zorobabel, and his Son Abiud, but he brings no Proofs to recommend this Opi∣nion. They commonly object, when they would prove that this Book was not written by Salomon, that there are abundance of Chaldee words to be found in it, that are only to be met in Daniel, Ezrah, &c. but perhaps these words might be in fashion amongst the Jews towards the end of Sa∣lomon's Reign, or it may be they were added since. One might also object this passage of ch. 2. v. 8. Os regis observa, which makes it credible that it is not a King that speaks; but we ought to read observa, as it is in the Septuagint. [It looks also a lit∣tle strange that Salomon should so often say, that he did so or so, above all that were before him in Jerusalem (Eccles. 1. 16. 2. 7, 9.) since his Father David was the first King that ever Reigned in Jerusalem.]

(ee) This Book of Wisdom is commonly attribu∣ted to Salomon.] This is St. Cyprian's opinion in his Book of Morality, of St. Augustine in his se∣cond Book of the Christian Doctrine, ch. 8. The ancient Versions, the Rabbins, Origen, St. Chry∣sostome, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, have likewise attributed it to Salomon. The most ancient Fathers call the Proverbs, the Wisdom of Salomon.

(ff) St. Jerome says, he saw in his time an Hebrew Copy.] Munster and Fagius still make men∣on of an Hebrew Copy of this Book: Buxtorf tells us, he saw one that was Printed at Constan∣tinople, but 'tis probable, that that Text was made upon the Greek.

(gg) Some of the Ancients have attributed this Work to Salomon.] St. Cyprian and St. Ambrose have cited it under his name. St. Hilary testifies, that several Persons in his time attributed it to him. This opinion is impossible to be maintain∣ed, not only because we know who is the Author, but also because in ch. 47. there is mention made of the Prophets that lived after Salomon. Eusebius; St. Jerome, the Author of the Abridgment attri∣buted to Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom; St. Austin, Caesarius of Arles, and many others, have acknowledged the true Author of it, who was Jesus the Son of Syrach. St. Jerome says, he lived under the High-Priest Simon the Son of Onias the Second, and that he wrote this Book after the Version of the Septuagint, or at least, that he lived in their time: And first he proves it by the Preface of his Grandson, who says he collected these Books of his Grandfather in the time of Ptolomy Euergetes, who immediately succeeded Ptolomy Philadelphus. Secondly, because he com∣mends the High-Priest Simon the Just, Son of Onias the First, ch. 50. and afterwards the Translator praises Jesus the Son of Sirach, as one that lived in the time of that High-Priest. Thirdly, because, ch. 2. he seems to speak of the Persecution, which the Jews suffered under Ptolomy the Son of Lagus, and in the first year of Ptolomy Philadelphus. Hueti∣us believes, that Joseph the Son of Syrach is the same with a certain Jew named Ben Sira, who has writ∣ten the Proverbs in Hebrew, but this opinion does not appear to be well grounded.

(hh) The Son of one Amos, whom we must not confound with the Prophet that bears this name.] The name of the Prophet is Amos, and that of the Father of Isaiah, is Amots. The first was a Shepherd, the second was of Royal Extraction. The first lived in the time of Uzziah King of Judah, the later is more ancient. St. Jerome in cap. 1. Isaiae, St. Austin in the 18th Book de Civitate Dei, ch. 27. St. Cyril in his Preface upon Amos, and others, have distinguished between these two. Clemens Alex∣andrinus, l. 1. Strom. the Author of the Life and Death of the Prophets, attributed to St. Epiphani∣us, and the Rabbins, have confounded them. St. Jerome tells us, that the Father of Isaiah was Father in Law to Manasses.

(ii) By whose command, they say, he was cruelly put to death, and sawn asunder with a Wooden Saw.] This is a common Tradition amongst the Jews, and is confirmed by the Testimonies of Tertullian, St. Jerome, and St. Basil.

[kk] The conjectures they bring to prove it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 very frivolous.] They say, that the Prophecy of Isaiah does not begin before the 6th Chapter; when, after 〈…〉〈…〉 said that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••ld his Tongue, he says, I heard a voice of the Lord, ••aying, wh•••• shall I send? In the second place they pretend, that what he says in the first Chapter concerning the desolation of Judah, does not at all agree with with the Reign of Uzziah, and therefore 'tis not the beginning of his Prophecy. Thirdly, we don't find, say they, in this Book the Life and Actions of Uzziah that were written by Isaiah, as we are informed in the Chronicles. Fourthly, Isaiah pro∣phesied also under Manasses, but there are no Pro∣phecies under his Name, that have any relation to the Reign of that King. Fifthly, the order of things frequently reversed as well in Isaiah, as in the other Prophets. Answer▪ To the first Ob∣jection we return this answer, That the Prophet does not say, he had as yet wrote nothing, but only that he tarried a long time without writing, and at last God commanded him to write. 'Tis belie∣ved, he wrote this in the last year of King Uzziah. To the second we reply, That he might foretel a future desolation, even at a time before it hap∣pened. 'Tis an easie matter to answer the third by saying, that the Book of the Actions of Uzziah mentioned in the Chronicles, is different from that of his Prophecies. In order to answer the fourth, it sufficeth to observe, that it is no where said, that Isaiah wrote those things which he prophesied un∣der Manasses. Lastly, as for the fifth, we say, that we ought not to expect a continued Historical style from the Prophets. On the contrary, their Prophecies are generally written without connexi∣on and order. Their was formerly another Pro∣phecy of Jeremiah mentioned by Origen, where these words were to be found, Appenderunt merce∣d•…•… m•…•…, &c. The Nazarens made use of it, as St. Jerome testifies in cap. Matth. 27.

(ll) We don't certainly know at what time.] Some are of opinion, that Baruch went not to Babylon till after the death of his Master Jeremiah, to whom he was too far engaged ever to quit him, and they confirm this opinion by the 2d Verse, where mention is made of the burning of Jerusa∣lem. Others say, he wrote his Book before the destruction of Jerusalem, because he there speaks of Sacrifices and Consecrated Vessels, which makes them believe, that he was one of those that were deputed in the fourth year of Zedekiah, of whom Saraiah the Brother of Baruch was chief. They affirm therefore, that having carried the Book of Isaiah thither, he composed his Prophecy the year following to comfort the Captives, and that the fifth year after the taking of Jerusalem, which is mentioned in the second Verse, ought to be com∣puted from the Captivity of Jechoniah.

(mm) Which seems to be confirmed by a certain passage in his Book.] In the first Chapter, verse 3. Et ait rex Asphe••es praeposito E•…•…horum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fue∣runt ergo inter eos Daniel, &c. Origen and St. Je∣rome are of this opinion. The Author of the Life and Death of the Prophets attributed to St. Epi∣phanius, and the false Dorotheus, are of the contrary opinion.

(nn) The truth and antiquity of the two last Chap∣ters, that contain the History of Susanna and of Bel, are mightily doubted Africanus, Eusebius, and Apolli•…•… reject both these Stories as fabulous, and maintain they were not written by Daniel, but that they make a part of the Prophecy of H•…•… St. Jerome seems to be of this opinion in his Preface upon Daniel. Origen has defended the truth of this History, without being willing to affirm that it was Canonical. The Author of the Book of the Wonderful things in Scripture attribu∣ted to St. Austin, Tom. 3. lib. 2. chap. 32. does not mention the History of Susanna, and rejects that of Bel. Theodoret in his Comments upon Da∣niel speaks not a word of these Histories. Nice∣phorus places the History of Susanna amongst the Apocryphal Books. The Action of Susanna is re∣lated and commended by Clemens Alexandrinus, l. 4. Strom. by Tertullian, libr. de Corona, c. 4. by St. Cyprian, Ep. 4. by St. Austin in his 118th Ser∣mon, and in several other places; by St. Basil, lib. 3. de Spir. sancto. cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. by St. Ambrose, lib. 2. de Spir. Sancto; by St. Chrysostome in an Homily which is in Tom. 5. by Gregory Nazianzene in his 29th Oration; by Avitus in his Epistle to his Si∣ster; by St. Fulgentius in his Answers to Ferran∣dus; and by Bede. The Author of the Abridg∣ment attributed to St. Athanasius, and Ruffinus, seem to own it for a Canonical Book, as well as St. Ambrose, and Sulpitius Severus. The Objecti∣ons that are urged against this History are these. In the first place they tell us; that the History of Susanna could not happen when Daniel was a youth, as he is called in that Story. For in the 13th Chapter, verse 65. it is observed, that Astyages was dead, and Cyrus reigned in his place. Now Daniel was then well in years. Answer. This Hi∣story happened a long time before, and as for the above mentioned passage it is put out of its place. For in the ancient Versions it is placed at the be∣ginning of the Book of Daniel, and 'tis therefore set at the end of it in the Vulgar Edition, because it is not to be found in the Hebrem Text. Wherefore these words of the 13th Chapter, verse 65. And King Astyages was gathered to his Fathers, do not at all concern the History of Susanna, but that of Bel, which immediately follows, and ac∣cordingly in the Edition of Sixtus Quintus it is joyned to it.

Africanus objects, that it is not credible, that Joachim the Husband of Susanna was so rich and powerful in the Captivity, as he is said to be in that Book; nor that the Captive Jews had authority to condemn their own Criminals. To this Ori∣gen answers, That the Jews that were carried a∣way Captives into Babylon were not plundered, but that they were both rich and powerful, and that there is a great deal of reason to believe they had authority to judge and condemn their Male∣factors by their own Laws, as they had afterwards, when they were conquered by the Romans. In the second place, Africanus raises an Objection about an allusion that is to be found in this Hi∣story, where Daniel is introduced discoursing to the Elders in certain words, that allude to the Greek names of the Trees, under which they found Susanna committing wickedness. For the first of them having said, that it was under a Mastick Tree, in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he answered him, that an Angel should cut him in two, because the word

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in Greek to cut asunder; and the other having said, that it was under a Holm-Oak 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he makes use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which allusions, says Africanus, makes it appear, that it was a Greek that wrote these things. On the other hand Origen answers, that Daniel never made use of these terms, or names of Trees, but of some other Hebrew or Chaldee word, to which the Verb that signifies to cut asunder, answered, and that the Greek Interpreter endeavoured to render this sense by finding out some names of Trees, which alluded to those Greek Verbs that signifie to cut asunder: And thus in Genesis, when it is said in the He∣brew, that a Woman is called Isha, the feminine of the word Ish that signifies a Man, the Latin Translation has rendred it haec vocabitur virgo, and in the Greek, Symmachus has translated it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is a better word than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the Septua∣gint have used.

'Tis commonly objected against the History of Bel, that the ancient Title in the Septuagint at∣tributes it to Habakkuk, and that the Daniel men∣tioned in that History was a Priest; 'tis therefore another Daniel to whom all this happened. Answer. St. Jerome observes, that the Greek In∣terpreter of Daniel, whose Version goes under the name of the Septuagint, has allowed himself a great deal of liberty. Secondly, 'tis said, that Ha∣bakkuk, who lived in the time of Manasses, was dead about that time. Likewise 'tis replied by way of answer, that we ought to distinguish be∣tween the two Habakkuks, one that was a Pro∣phet and lived in the time of Manasses, and the other who is spoken of in this place of Daniel, the last was of the Tribe of Levi, the former of Si∣meon. Lastly they tell us, that in the History of Bel and the Dragon it is said, that Daniel was six days in the Lions Den, whereas in the sixth Chap∣ter, v. 19. we are told that he continued there but one night. But to this they answer, that Daniel was twice cast into the Lions Den, under Darius, because he prayed to his God contrary to the ex∣press command of that King, and under Cyrus up∣on occasion of the Dragon. The Prophecy of Da∣niel is quoted by Ezechiel, chap. 14. v. 14. in the first Book of the Maccabees, chap. 2. v. 59. and 60. Matth. 24. v. 15.

(oo) Hosea the Son of Beeri is the first.] 'Tis be∣lieved, that he is the most ancient not only of the twelve Minor, but also of all the Prophets. The false Epiphanius, and false Dorotheus report, that he was of the Tribe of Issachar, and the City of Belenor, but these two are not very credible Au∣thors.

(pp) The Prophet Joel follows Hosea.] This order is observed in the Hebrew Text, but the Greeks place Amos and Micah between them.

(qq) 'Tis not certainly known at what time Joel prophesied.] Huetius pretends, that he prophesied after the Captivity of the ten Tribes, because it is said, chap. 3. v. 2. that they have scattered the Peo∣ple of Israel amongst the Nations. But why might not he speak of a future thing, as if it were already done? He likewise says, that there is not a word spoken of the Kingdom of Israel in the whole Prophecy, but this is not certain. Those persons that say he prophesied before Amos ground them∣selves principally upon his prediction of a Fa∣mine towards the end of the first Chapter, where∣of Amos speaks as of a thing already past in the 4th Chapter of his Prophecy. But Huetius thinks, that these are two several Famines, that the Fa∣mine mentioned in Amos happened naturally, whereas the other, which Joel foretold, was to be occasioned by the incursions of Enemies.

(rr) The time of Obadiah is uncertain.] 'Tis not probable, that this Prophet was he, of whom mention is made in the Book of Kings, for he is only called there one that feared God. 'Tis more probable, that he lived in the time of Ahaz, when the Edomites, in conjunction with the Israelites, made War upon the Tribe of Judah, because he perpetually declaims against the Edomites.

(ss) Jonah the Son of the Prophet Amittai.] The Hebrews say, he was the Widows Son of Sa∣repta, but this is only a groundless fancy.

(tt) He that was the Son of Histaspes.] This is the opinion of Josephus, of Clemens Alexandrinus, of St. Jerome and Theodoret. Scaliger thinks, that it was Darius Nothus, because there is mention made here of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes his Predeces∣sors, whom he takes to be Xerxes and Longima∣nus; but it is an easie matter to answer him, by saying, that these names are given in Scripture, without any discrimination, to all the Kings of Persia; and that by them we may understand Cyrus and Cambyses the Predecessors of Darius the Son of Histaspes, or Cambyses and Smerdis, or, if we please, Cambyses himself, to whom the Scri∣pture gives two Names. Scaliger's other Argu∣ment is stronger; he says that Zechariah and Hag∣gai Prophesied at the same time. And Zechariah in the first Chapter, vers. 12. and in the 7th, vers. 5. testifies, That when he wrote, the People of Is∣rael had been Threescore and Ten years in Affli∣ction, and that God was Angry with them. Now the Second year of Darius, the Son of Histaspes, is not the 70th year of the Captivity. To this it is answered, That the Prophet Zechariah does not say, that it was 70 years since the Children of Is∣rael were in Captivity; neither that they were then in Captivity, but he only says in general Terms; that they had been in Affliction, and that God had poured down his Indignation upon them for the space of Threescore and Ten years, which ought to be understood of the 70 years of the Captivity, although it was already past. The Hebrew and Greek Phrase in this passage no more denotes the present time, than the past. One un∣deniable Argument to prove, that Haggai wrote in the time of Darius, the Son of Histaspes, is this, that speaking of the second Temple, in ch. 2. ver. 3. he says, Who is left amongst you that saw this House in her first Glory? Quis in vobis est derelictus, qui vi∣dit Domum istam in Gloriâ suâ Primâ? Now if this had been Written under Darius Nothus, these Per∣sons ought to have been 176 years old, or there∣about; and it wou'd follow, that Ezrah was 100 years old, Zorobabel and Joshua 140, for so great a space of time there is from the first year of Cyrus down to the time of Darius Nothus.

(uu) Grandson of Iddo.] He is called in Ezrah the Son of Iddo; in the Septuagint, and in St. Je∣rome's Version, the Son of Barachiah, the Son of Iddo. St. Jerome is of Opinion, that he was the Natural Son of Barachiah, and the Son of Iddo by

Imitation; Others say he was the Son of the lat∣ter, according to the Law, but 'tis far more pro∣bable that he was his Grandson, as it is observed in our vulgar Translation. St. Jerome is mistaken in confounding this Iddo with him, that was sent to Jerusalem in the time of Jeroboam, since there were 240 years from Jeroboam to Dari••s, a time too long to allow between Grandfather and Grandson.

(xx) He is different from Zechariah, men∣tioned by I••aiah.] By Chronology it appears, that this was not the Prophet, no more than he who is mentioned in the Chronicles, and died in the time of Joash. The First was the Son of Bara∣chiah, the Second of Jehoiada. That which has occasion'd this difficulty, is the saying of our Sa∣viour, in St. Matthew, chap. 25. That Zechariah the Son of Barachiah was Slain between the Temple and the Altar; which agrees with what is related in the Chronicles, with Zechariah the Son of Je∣hoiada; and this introduced St. Jerome to believe that our Blessed Saviour spoke of him, and that we ought to Read, as we find it in the Gospel of the Nazarens, the Son of Jehoiada, and not of Barachiah. Origen on the contrary, and several others, understand this place of the Prophet, who, they say, was Slain after the same manner. They have this Text of the Gospel on their side; and besides, our Saviour speaks of a Prophet, which cannot be understood of the Son of Jehoiada.

(yy) Malachi, whose Name in the Hebrew, sig∣nifies, My Angel.] And this has made Origen and Tertullian believe, that he was an Angel Incarnate. He is called an Angel by the greatest part of the Fathers, and in the Version of the Septuagint, but he was Angel by Office and not by Nature, as he himself calls the Priests Angels. Some Persons, as Jonathan the Chaldee Paraphrast, St. Jerome, and several Jews believed, that it was an Appellative Name which Ezrah assumed, and that he was Au∣thor of this Book, but this Opinion is established upon very weak Conjectures; and besides, Ezrah is no where in Scripture called a Prophet. St. Je∣rome proves his Opinion in the first place, because Malachi and Ezrah lived at the same time; Se∣condly, Because what is in Malachi is very like what we find in Ezrah; And lastly, Because in chap. 2. vers. 7. he seems to point at Ezrah by these Words, Verba Sac••rdotis custodiunt Scienti••m, &c. ••ut these Conjectures are light and frivolous. For the first only proves that Malachi and Ezrah lived at the same time, not that they were one and the same: The second is not true, and if it were, it would prove just nothing. The Words quoted in the third ought to be understood of Levi, and all the Priests of the Law. He adds, that in Ec∣clesiasticus, chap. 49. where mention is made of all the Prophets, the Name of Malachi is not to be found. To this it is answered, That we ought not to be surprized, because he is not Named there, since in the same place there is no mention made of Daniel, and several others.

(zz) The difference of the Style, of the Chrono∣logy, and of the History make it appear.] The first Book of Maccabees was written by an Hebrew, the second by a Greek; the second begins the Hi∣story a great deal higher than the first. One fol∣lows the Jewish Account, the other that of Alex∣andria, which begins Six Months after. Some Per∣sons attribute the first to Josephus, others to Philo, others to the Synagogue, and others to the Mac∣cabees. The Phrase of the first is Jewish; and St. Jerome tells us, he had the Hebrew Copy of it. It was Intituled, The Scepter of the Rebels a∣gainst the Lord, or rather, The Scepter of the Prince of the Children of God. The second was Written by Jason, as it is observed in the Preface. Huetius believes, that the third and fourth Chapter, as well as the two last, don't belong to Jason, be∣cause it is said in chap. 2. vers. 20. that he wrote down all that passed under Antiochus and Eupa∣tor, but then the remainder, which is the end and the beginning of that History, ought to be un∣derstood.

(aaa) From a Sentence in Exodus.] This Sen∣tence is in Hebrew, Mi Camacha Be Elim Jehovah: Who is like to the Lord amongst the Powers? Now taking the first Letters of each Word we make Maccabee: Others give a different Etymology of this Name, but this is the most probable.

Notes

• * 1.1

  [I believe it should be 5 instead of 50, because the 146th Psalm has this Title in the LXX, of Haggai and Zechariah.]